Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Arvind Kejriwal, §11, third-party consultation, procedure)
+metatag-description=(§11 third-party process is procedural; cannot be a substantive refusal ground.)
+metatag-title=(Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO — 2008 — RTI case law)}}
+====== Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO ======
+**Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO** (Central Information Commission, 2008-04-20) //CIC/AT/A/2008/000123// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 11. §11 third-party process is procedural; cannot be a substantive refusal ground. Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedural provision requiring consultation with third party.
+===== Holding =====
+§11 third-party process is procedural; cannot be a substantive refusal ground.
+===== Ratio =====
+Section 11 of the RTI Act is a procedural provision requiring consultation with third party. It is not a substantive exemption. PIO cannot refuse the request outright citing §11 — must follow the consultation procedure and decide on merits.
+===== Section(s) applied =====
+  * Section 11
+===== Practitioner takeaway =====
+§11 mandates consultation; outright refusal under §11 invalid.
+===== Citation =====
+  * **Citation:** CIC/AT/A/2008/000123
+  * **Court:** Central Information Commission
+  * **Date:** 2008-04-20
+  * **Outcome:** allowed
+  * **Reporter / Cause-list:** CIC/AT/A/2008/000123
+===== Related =====
+  * [[:cases:search|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
+  * [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:pio-high-court-rulings|High Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:landmark-cic-decisions|Landmark CIC decisions]]
+  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
+//Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag>rti case-law cases cic 2008}}

Was this helpful? — views