RTI Refused as 8(1)(e) Fiduciary? How to Win on Appeal

A PIO can refuse an RTI under Section 8(1)(e) only when the information is genuinely held in a fiduciary capacity, meaning held in trust FOR your benefit. This exemption is one of the most over-used and wrongly applied grounds, and you can defeat it on first or second appeal by showing there is no fiduciary relationship and that Section 8(2) public interest favours disclosure.

Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 exempts “information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.” So even the bare text builds in an escape hatch: a public authority can still release the information if the larger public interest demands it. The exemption is conditional, not absolute.

A fiduciary relationship is not the same as ordinary confidentiality. The Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, adopted the Black's Law Dictionary meaning: “A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship.” The Court added that a fiduciary “refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and candour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence.”

Three ingredients must all be present:

1. Trust and special confidence placed by one person in another.
2. Benefit of the other as the purpose. The holder must hold the information FOR the person who entrusted it.
3. A duty to act in that person's interest, not merely a duty to keep a secret.

The direction matters. Section 8(1)(e) protects information a public authority holds BY virtue of being a fiduciary FOR a beneficiary. It does not protect a department's own files just because they are sensitive. Generic “this is confidential” is not enough.

• Banks refusing customer or loan records. A bank does not hold your account information as a fiduciary FOR a third party who later seeks it. Regulators routinely misuse this label too.
• Departments hiding internal audit, vigilance or inquiry reports. An audit report is the department's own document. It is not held in trust for any beneficiary.
• Employers citing it for service records, ACR or APAR entries. A confidential report about you, sought by you, is not held in a fiduciary relationship that justifies hiding it from you.
• Officials shielding file notings or selection-committee minutes by simply stamping them “fiduciary” without identifying any beneficiary.

Two Supreme Court rulings are your strongest weapons.

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525 (judgment dated 16 December 2015). The RBI refused inspection reports of banks claiming, among other things, a fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e). The Court rejected this squarely, holding that “RBI is not in any fiduciary relationship with the banks” and that the RBI “has a statutory duty to uphold the interest of public at large, the depositors, country's economy and the banking sector.” A regulator that supervises an entity is not its fiduciary. Use this whenever a regulator or supervisory body hides what it knows about the bodies it oversees.

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 (judgment dated 9 August 2011). The examination board refused inspection of evaluated answer-books, claiming a fiduciary relationship with the examinee. The Court held: “We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer-books.” The examinee won the right to inspect the answer-books. Use this whenever a body that owes you a public duty, rather than holds something in trust for you, hides behind 8(1)(e).

Read together, these cases draw the line: information held BY a fiduciary FOR a beneficiary is protected; information a body holds about you, or about an entity it merely regulates, is not.

Even if some fiduciary element exists, Section 8(2) can still force disclosure. It reads: “Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”

This is a balancing test. To plead it, do not just assert “public interest.” Show the specific public interest concretely:

1. The information exposes misuse of public funds, corruption, favouritism or a safety risk.
2. Disclosure promotes accountability of a public authority spending taxpayer money.
3. The harm claimed is vague or speculative, while the benefit of disclosure is real and named.

Spell out, in your appeal, exactly whose interest is served by openness and why that outweighs the supposed harm.

1. Read the refusal carefully. Note whether the PIO actually named a beneficiary and identified the trust relationship, or just wrote “8(1)(e)” as a label. A bare citation without reasoning is itself a defect under Section 7.
2. File the First Appeal within 30 days to the First Appellate Authority, an officer senior in rank to the PIO, under Section 19(1). The FAA must decide within 30 days, extendable to a maximum of 45.
3. Argue the three-part test fails. State that the PIO identified no relationship of trust, no beneficiary, and no duty to act for another's benefit, so 8(1)(e) does not apply.
4. Cite RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry and CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay to show how the Supreme Court reads the exemption narrowly.
5. Plead Section 8(2) in the alternative: even if a fiduciary element existed, the larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm.
6. If the FAA fails you, file a Second Appeal to the CIC or State Information Commission within 90 days of the FAA order under Section 19(3). Attach the RTI, the refusal, the first appeal and the FAA order.

• The PIO invoked Section 8(1)(e) without identifying any fiduciary relationship, beneficiary or duty to act for another, as required by CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
• The authority holds the information in discharge of a public or statutory duty, not in trust for a beneficiary, so the exemption does not apply (RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525).
• Without prejudice, the larger public interest in disclosure outweighs any harm, so Section 8(2) mandates release.
• The refusal gives no reasons and no public-interest balancing, violating Sections 7 and 19.

Yes, as a rule. In Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, the Supreme Court held that “every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry.” A report written about you, sought by you, is not held in a fiduciary relationship that lets the department hide it from you.

No. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, settled that an examining body does not hold evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee, so you can inspect and obtain copies. Re-evaluation, however, is a separate matter not granted by RTI itself.

Then Section 11 applies. Before disclosing third-party information treated as confidential, the PIO must give that third party written notice within 5 days, allow them 10 days to make a representation, and decide within 40 days. Section 11 is a procedure, not a blanket bar, and the third party's objection is only one factor the PIO weighs against the public interest.

No. Marking a file confidential does not create a fiduciary relationship. Section 8(1)(e) needs trust placed in the holder to act for the benefit of another. Ordinary secrecy or internal sensitivity is not enough, and the public-interest override in Section 8(2) still applies.

Section 8(2) applies notwithstanding any exemption in sub-section (1), so it can be invoked against 8(1)(e) and most other clauses. You must show, with specifics, that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest.

A refusal must state the reasons, the relevant exemption and your appeal rights under Section 7(8). A bare “8(1)(e)” with no explanation is itself appealable, and appellate authorities frequently set aside such non-speaking orders.

If your RTI was refused under 8(1)(e), do not give up at the PIO stage. The exemption is narrow, the case law is on your side, and Section 8(2) gives you a second route even where some fiduciary element exists. File the first appeal within 30 days and escalate to the Commission within 90 days if needed.

• Understand all refusal grounds: Grounds for rejection under Section 8
• If even the Commission fails you: RTI writ petition in the High Court under Article 226
• Filing a second appeal in Maharashtra: Maharashtra SIC second appeal online guide
• Read the full playbook: The RTI Playbook

• RTI Act 2005, Section 8 (full text): Indian Kanoon
• RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525: Indian Kanoon
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497: Indian Kanoon
• Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725: Indian Kanoon
• RTI Act 2005, Section 11 (third party): Indian Kanoon