Table of Contents
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 2018-07-23 · (2018) 17 SCC 324 · ★ Landmark
Proactive disclosure under §4 is a continuing duty; governments cannot substitute it with §6 responses.
Case details
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2018-07-23 |
| Citation | (2018) 17 SCC 324 |
| Bench | A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan |
| Petitioner | Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan & Anr. |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| RTI Act sections | §4(1)(b), §4(2) |
| Outcome | Applicant allowed |
Outcome
Section 4 is a continuing obligation; Rajasthan and other States directed to improve proactive disclosure.
Ratio decidendi
The obligation under §4 to proactively disclose information is a continuing one, not a one-time exercise. Suo motu disclosure in accessible local language is the rule; it cannot be substituted by responses only upon §6 application.
Keywords
§4, proactive disclosure, suo motu, MKSS
Similar cases in the corpus
These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.
- Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC (SIC-MH 2019)
- Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC (HC-RAJ 2018)
- Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC (HC-UP 2017)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.
Discussion