How to Cite Case Law in PIO Replies and FAA Orders

Pattern: `“… as held by the [Court] in [Case Name], [Citation], where the Court ruled that [one-line ratio].”`

Example:

“The information sought falls within Section 8(1)(j) as held by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212, where the Court held that service records and APAR grading of government employees are personal information unless larger public interest is demonstrated.”

Three lines. One case. One ratio. Precisely-cited statutory provision.

• Ratio decidendi = the legal principle necessary to the decision. Binding on all lower courts and authorities.
• Obiter dicta = passing observations not necessary to the decision. Persuasive but not binding.

Rule of thumb: if removing the statement changes the outcome, it's ratio; if removing it doesn't, it's obiter.

• UoI v. ADR, (2002) — right to know is inherent in Article 19(1)(a); exemptions must be strictly construed.
• Use sparingly; §8(1)(a) rarely litigated because departments mostly agree.

• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525 — narrow reading; regulator is not fiduciary. (Also relevant to §8(1)(e).)
• Pair with clear identification of the trade-secret element.

• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — four-factor fiduciary test.
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525 — narrow application.
• ICAI v. Shaunak Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 — temporal fiduciary for exam material.

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008) — specific impedance required; blanket refusal struck down.

• R.K. Jain v. UoI, (2013) 14 SCC 1 — file notings are information; post-decisional disclosable.

• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — service records.
• CPIO, SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 — proportional balance for public offices.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — three-step privacy test.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — own data to self.

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC — speaking order required.
• Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, (2010) 2 SCC 1 — no duty to create info.

• Delhi HC line (multiple) and CIC Full Bench orders — severance mandatory where reasonable.

• Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, CIC (Delhi HC 2010) — procedural compliance mandatory.

• Thalappalam Service Co-op Bank v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82 — “substantially financed” test.

• Mis-spelling. “Bandhyopadhyay” → correct is “Bandopadhyay”. “Deshpandey” → correct is “Deshpande”.
• Wrong reporter series. SCC vs AIR vs SCR — SCC is the standard.
• Omitting volume / page. “Deshpande” alone is not a citation; needs (2013) 1 SCC 212.
• Citing a non-binding bench. A 2-judge ruling may have been overruled by a 3-judge; always check.
• Citing overruled rulings. E.g., Namit Sharma has been partly overtaken by the 2019 Amendment.
• Over-citing. More than 3 citations per reply suggests the PIO is hiding behind case law rather than reasoning.
• Citing without reading. Common with obiter-heavy rulings; always read the ratio.

• Case name: italic, both parties, with “v.” not “Vs.” — e.g., Girish Deshpande v. CIC.
• Citation: parentheses year + volume + reporter + page — e.g., (2013) 1 SCC 212.
• Court: suffix if non-SC — “(Delhi HC 2008)”, “(Bombay HC 2014)”.
• Ratio quotation: single inverted commas for short phrases; blockquote for longer.

• Cite once, refer thereafter. In a multi-section reply, full citation once; subsequent references use short-form (“Deshpande”).
• Pair ratio with statute. “§8(1)(j), as interpreted in Deshpande” — stronger than either alone.
• Update your library. DPDP Rules 2025 has shifted the Section 8(1)(j) landscape; refresh your citation briefs.
• Maintain a ratio file in your PIO office: one-line ratio per case, keyed to sub-clause. Updated quarterly.
• Cite the local HC before citing the SC where both exist — shows you know the jurisdictional line.

• Citing obiter as ratio.
• Citing cases the PIO hasn't read.
• Using “it has been held that…” without naming the case.
• Citing HC from another state as if binding.
• Over-citation (more than 3 per reply).

Q1. Is it enough to cite only statutory sections?
Statutory citation is essential but often insufficient. Case-law citation explains the scope of the section.

Q2. Can a PIO cite CIC orders?
Yes — as persuasive authority. Not binding on HCs or SC, but very useful at FAA level.

Q3. Should I attach the full judgment?
No. The citation + one-line ratio is enough. The FAA can look up the full text.

Q4. What if I am unsure whether the ratio applies?
Do not cite. A wrong citation weakens your reply more than no citation.

Citing case law is the discipline that turns a clerk's reply into a lawyer's reply. Three lines done right. One ratio aligned to one sub-clause. That's the craft.

• 10 landmark Supreme Court rulings
• 10 landmark High Court rulings
• 10 landmark CIC decisions
• PIO RTI reply guide
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• Supreme Court Cases reporter series.
• Delhi HC / Bombay HC / other HC published reports.
• CIC orders at cic.gov.in.
• Cross-reference on indiankanoon.org and scobserver.in.

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.