Table of Contents
Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line
Central Information Commission · 2012-01-01 · multiple CIC orders
Where §4 disclosure exists, PIO may direct applicant to the source rather than re-compile.
Case details
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2012-01-01 |
| Citation | multiple CIC orders |
| Petitioner | various |
| Respondent | various |
| RTI Act sections | §4, §7 |
| Outcome | Guidance / other |
Outcome
Information already disclosed under §4 or in public domain can be pointed to, not re-compiled.
Ratio decidendi
Where information is already suo motu disclosed under §4(1)(b) or is in the public domain, PIO may direct the applicant to the source. The applicant may not demand the same information in a specific form repeatedly.
Keywords
§4 disclosure, repeat requests, public domain, CIC
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.
- RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g) (SC 2014)
- Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line (CIC 2010)
- Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (SC 2012)
- §6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC (HC-MAD 2013)
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