Most delayed RTI replies, most partial denials, and a surprising number of Section 8(1)(j) refusals trace back to a single drafting error by the Public Information Officer. The information asked for relates to, or was supplied by, someone other than the applicant and the public authority. Section 11 was triggered. Notice was either not issued, or issued late, or issued without a hearing, or decided without recording reasons in writing. The third party had no say. The applicant got silence. Both parties lose.

This page sets out what Section 11 actually requires, what the leading High Court and Commission decisions say about the process, how the 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) reshapes the outcome, and the checklist a Public Information Officer and an applicant should keep next to the file.

Section 2(n) of the Act defines a third party as “a person other than the citizen making a request for information” and includes a public authority. Three categories of third party recur in practice.

• An individual — the colleague named in a file noting, the spouse whose assets are on record, the doctor whose medical opinion was sought.
• A corporate or a firm — the contractor whose bid was filed, the bank whose KYC record is held, the vendor whose invoice is on the file.
• Another public authority — the ministry that forwarded a confidential note, the State department that shared an inter-governmental communication, the Commission that sent an advisory.

The test is functional. Whoever supplied the information or whose interest is affected by its disclosure is a third party for the purposes of Section 11. The applicant is never a third party to her own application. The answering public authority is not a third party to its own record.

11.  Third party information.

(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.

Section 11 applies only when both conditions are met.

1. The information was supplied by, or relates to, a person other than the applicant and the answering public authority.
2. That person has treated the information as confidential.

If either condition is absent, Section 11 does not apply. Routine disclosures of the applicant's own file, of publicly available records, or of information the third party has itself already published do not attract the Section 11 process.

The Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 16073 and 17067 of 2007 (decided 16 August 2007, reported at 2008 (2) RTI 461) held that the expectation of confidentiality rests with the third party. “What is confidential to the third party is known to the third party alone. There may not be a rubber stamp upon the information that this is confidential information. It is right vested in the third party to treat any information 'relating to or supplied by the third party' as confidential.” The Public Information Officer cannot read the third party's mind. The way to find out is to issue the notice.

Section 11 is only triggered when the Public Information Officer intends to disclose. Before that intent is formed, the Public Information Officer must apply the Section 8 and Section 9 exemptions. If the information is exempt under, say, Section 8(1)(a) relating to national security or Section 8(1)(j) relating to purely personal information with no public-activity link, no disclosure is proposed at all. Section 11 does not enter the picture. If, after exemption analysis, the Officer concludes that the information is disclosable, and the information has been supplied by or relates to a third party that has treated it as confidential, the Officer is now obliged to issue the Section 11 notice.

The notice must issue within five days of receipt of the application. It must

• Describe the request in sufficient detail for the third party to identify what information is sought.
• State that the Public Information Officer presently intends to disclose the information.
• Invite the third party to make a written or oral submission within ten days.
• Give the contact details of the Public Information Officer.

A notice that is issued late is still a notice. The applicant's decision clock stretches to forty days regardless. A notice that is not issued at all is a breach of Section 11 and is a ground on its own for reversal in appeal.

The third party's submission may be in writing or oral. It must be recorded on the file either way. The grounds that a third party may urge are limited to Section 8 exemptions and, for trade or commercial secrets, Section 9. General pleas of inconvenience, reputational concern, or commercial sensitivity not traceable to a statutory exemption do not constitute valid objection under the Act.

The Officer must weigh the third party's submission alongside the applicant's right to information and the public interest. The decision must

• Be in writing.
• State the exemption considered and why it applies or does not apply.
• If disclosure is against the third party's wishes, record the reason, including the public interest finding where relevant.
• Be communicated to both the applicant and the third party.
• Inform the third party of the right to appeal within 30 days (Section 19(1)).

A bare “refused” or a bare “disclosed” order without reasons is unsustainable at first appeal. Section 7(8) reinforces this: the decision must state the reasons for rejection, the appellate window, and the name of the First Appellate Authority.

Section 11(4) read with Section 19 gives the third party an independent right of appeal. The first appeal lies before the First Appellate Authority of the department within thirty days of the Section 11(3) order. A second appeal lies before the Central or State Information Commission within ninety days of the first appellate order, or of the expiry of the period for making it.

Where the Public Information Officer has decided to disclose over the third party's objection, disclosure does not take effect until the Section 11(4) appeal window has closed. That is the practical meaning of the hearing right. An applicant who complains about delay beyond Day 40 should first check whether a Section 11(4) appeal is pending before the First Appellate Authority.

With the notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025, Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 became operational and substituted Section 8(1)(j). The public interest override that was earlier embedded within clause (j) has been removed. Public interest reasoning in RTI now flows through Section 8(2), which allows disclosure of exempt information where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected interest, outside the trade-secret category.

The Section 11 procedure is unchanged. The outcome is more conservative on personal information.

• A Public Information Officer receiving an application that seeks personal information of a third party must, as always, apply Section 8(1)(j) first. After 14 November 2025 the clause-(j) test no longer has a built-in override.
• If Section 8(1)(j) applies and the Officer nevertheless proposes to disclose, disclosure must be justified under Section 8(2). The reasoning for the override must be recorded in writing, on the file, before notice to the third party is even contemplated.
• The Section 11 notice is still mandatory if the information was supplied by or relates to the third party and was treated as confidential.
• The third party's representation now has a stronger basis. The amended clause-(j) exemption is absolute on its face. Only a Section 8(2) finding can displace it.

For the practitioner note on how a Public Information Officer should draft the reply and the file noting in this new position, see Section 8(1)(j) after the DPDP Rules, 2025.

Suhas Chakma v. Central Information Commission, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) No. 9118/2009, decided 22 January 2010. The High Court held that information involving the privacy rights of a third party under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The Commission cannot, on a concession of parties before it or by agreement, find that public interest overrides privacy without hearing the third party. Notice is a condition of jurisdiction, not a courtesy.

Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) 6614/2008, 8999/2008, and 8407/2009, decided 30 July 2010 (Muralidhar J.). Section 8(1)(j) is a defence available to a third party. The Section 11 procedure is the operational mechanism through which that defence is put on the record. Whether privacy or public interest trumps in a given case is for the Public Information Officer to decide on the facts. See case page.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212. The Supreme Court declined to direct disclosure of a public servant's service record on a Section 8(1)(j) analysis, holding that the disclosure had no demonstrated relationship to any public activity. Status after 14 November 2025. The ratio on the non-disclosure of purely personal information continues. The Court's reliance on the clause-(j) public-interest override is now read against the amended clause. Public interest override applications after the amendment operate through Section 8(2). See the case page at Girish Deshpande: What is Personal Under RTI?.

Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497. The RTI Act covers “information” as defined in Section 2(f) — records, documents, samples, opinions that exist in some form. It does not create a duty to generate new information. Section 11 applies only to information that actually exists on record and was supplied by a third party; it does not authorise the Public Information Officer to canvass third parties for fresh disclosures.

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525. The Supreme Court narrowed the fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e). A regulator-regulated relationship is not by itself fiduciary. Where information was supplied by a regulated entity to its regulator, Section 11 is engaged. The third party may still raise Section 8(1)(d) trade-secret grounds.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment does not repeal the RTI Act. It supplies the constitutional backdrop against which Section 8(1)(j) is read. Public Information Officers must treat personal information with heightened care, even where the Act's exemption framework does not, on its face, protect it.

CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481. Information on the assets of judges of the Supreme Court held disclosable. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed that Section 11 procedure must be followed where the information is tied to a named third party, and the balance is struck on a case-by-case basis.

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, (2024) (Electoral Bonds case). Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know about political funding. A statutory confidentiality clause yields to the constitutional right to information on a public-interest test. The reasoning is transposed into Section 11 decisions where the third party is a corporate donor.

Delhi High Court on PhD theses (December 2024). Theses submitted by research scholars to publicly-funded universities are public records and disclosable under the RTI Act, subject only to narrow Section 8(1)(j) carve-outs with Section 10 severance. The third-party notice to the scholar is still required; the grounds of objection are limited.

Madras High Court on Annual Property Returns (2024). Annual Property Returns of All India Services officers are disclosable where a public-interest justification is made out. Section 11 notice to the officer remains mandatory; the Section 8(2) public-interest override is the engine after 14 November 2025.

Section 2(n) expressly includes a public authority within the meaning of “third party”. Where a public authority “X” receives confidential information from public authority “Y” (typically a note, an opinion, an inter-departmental advisory, or a communication flagged “confidential”), and an application under the RTI Act asks for that material from “X”, the Public Information Officer of “X” must consult “Y” under Section 11 before any disclosure. Non-compliance makes the Officer liable to action on appeal.

The Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 1/10/2009-IR dated 29 April 2009 affirms this position: another public authority is a third party, and the Section 11 notice is a statutory requirement, not a matter of inter-departmental comity.

  Application received
         ↓
  Does the record exist (Section 2(f))? ── No → Section 7(9) reply, no Section 11
         ↓ Yes
  Is any exemption under Section 8 or 9 attracted? ── Yes, and not overridden
         ↓                                          → Refusal. No Section 11.
         ↓ No (or override applies under Section 8(2))
         ↓
  Was the information supplied by or relating to
  someone other than the applicant, and treated
  as confidential by that person?                ── No → Disclose. No Section 11.
         ↓ Yes
  Section 11(1) notice → within 5 days
         ↓
  Third party representation → within 10 days
         ↓
  Section 11(3) reasoned decision → within 40 days
         ↓
  Notify third party of Section 11(4) / Section 19 appeal right
         ↓
  If no appeal within 30 days → disclosure takes effect
  If appeal is preferred → stay on disclosure until First Appellate Authority rules

Any person other than the applicant and the public authority to whom the application is addressed. A corporate, a firm, an individual, and another public authority all count. The test is whether the information was supplied by that person or relates to that person and whether that person has treated it as confidential.

Within five days of the date on which the Public Information Officer receives the application. The clock starts on receipt of the application, not on receipt of the file or on allocation.

No. The third party has a right to be heard, not a veto. If the Public Information Officer finds, after considering the objection, that no Section 8 exemption applies, or that Section 8(2) public interest outweighs the protected interest, the information must be disclosed. The third party's remedy is the Section 11(4) appeal, not the Section 11(2) representation alone.

The Public Information Officer proceeds on the material on file. Silence from the third party does not create an exemption. The Officer's duty to apply Section 8 and Section 9 remains unchanged.

No. The procedure in Section 11 is unchanged. The outcome of the exemption analysis under Section 8(1)(j) has changed. After 14 November 2025, personal information is exempt under clause (j) without the embedded public interest override. The override must now be found under Section 8(2). The Section 11 notice is issued in the same way.

Yes. Section 2(n) includes a public authority within the meaning of “third party”. Inter-departmental confidential notes attract the Section 11 procedure.

Only where the third party has clearly and expressly consented in writing, or where the information was never “treated as confidential” by the third party. An implied waiver cannot be presumed from silence before the notice.

Thirty days from the date of the Section 11(3) order, to the First Appellate Authority. A further ninety days to the Information Commission after the first appellate order, or after the expiry of the time for the first appellate order. These are the same windows as for an applicant's appeal.

Trade and commercial secrets are a separate exemption under Section 8(1)(d). Section 11 still applies — notice to the third party remains mandatory — and the third party's objection on trade-secret grounds is assessed under Section 8(1)(d). The proviso to Section 11(1) expressly carves trade and commercial secrets out of the general public-interest override.

An applicant seeking her own records is not a third party to her own application. Section 11 does not apply to that sub-set. It applies where the information pertains to someone else.

• Privacy under the RTI Act — the Section 8(1)(j) concept page.
• Grounds for rejection under Section 8 — each clause explained.
• Severability under Section 10 — partial disclosure, how it works alongside Section 11.
• Public interest under the RTI Act — the Section 8(2) override.
• Template: third-party notice under Section 11.
• Template: partial disclosure with severability.
• Guide for Public Information Officers.
• Guide for First Appellate Authorities.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
• ADR v. UoI, Electoral Bonds, 2024.
• PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025.
• DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to Section 8(1)(j).

• The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)
• All explanations
• Why RTI gets rejected
• First RTI template
• 25 RTI Questions Answered

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005), Sections 2(n), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20.
2. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
4. Department of Personnel and Training, Office Memorandum No. 1/10/2009-IR dated 29 April 2009 — third party includes another public authority.
5. Suhas Chakma v. Central Information Commission, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) No. 9118/2009, decided 22 January 2010.
6. Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, Delhi High Court, W.P. (C) 6614/2008 and connected matters, decided 30 July 2010.
7. Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos. 16073 and 17067 of 2007, decided 16 August 2007, 2008 (2) RTI 461.
8. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
9. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
10. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
11. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
12. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
13. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, Supreme Court, Electoral Bonds decision, 2024.
14. Delhi High Court direction on PhD theses disclosure under the RTI Act, December 2024.
15. Madras High Court direction on Annual Property Returns of All India Services officers, 2024.

20 April 2026, with reference to the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it stands after the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3), in force 14 November 2025.