Right to Information Wiki - cases

Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC,High Court of Allahabad RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,land records,mutation,Allahabad HC,§4(1)(b),revenue)&metatag-description=(Land records, mutation entries and revenue records are proactively disclosable under §4[1][b].)}}
	+
	+	====== Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Allahabad · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Land records and mutation entries are §4 suo-motu category; must be routinely accessible.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Allahabad \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Revenue authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Land records, mutation entries and revenue records are proactively disclosable under §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Land revenue records — khatauni, khasra, mutation entries — are public records held by revenue authorities. These fall within the suo-motu disclosure obligation under §4(1)(b) and cannot be withheld under routine §8 grounds.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	land records, mutation, Allahabad HC, §4(1)(b), revenue
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-ap-rti-land-acquisition-2022\|Land-acquisition records — Andhra Pradesh SIC]] (SIC-AP 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/mazdoor-kisan-shakti-sangathan-v-uoi-2018-sc\|Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-goa-rti-mining-leases-2021\|Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC]] (SIC-GA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-kerala-ration-card-records-2020\|Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC]] (SIC-KL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-UP\|All High Court of Allahabad rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-up section-4 section-7}}

Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,BPSC,interview marks,§8(1)(g),recruitment)&metatag-description=(Interview marks of candidate disclosable to that candidate; interviewer's identity not.)}}
	+
	+	====== Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-12-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Candidate's own interview marks disclosable; interviewer identity protected under §8(1)(g).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-12-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Bihar Public Service Commission \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RTI applicants \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Interview marks of candidate disclosable to that candidate; interviewer's identity not.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A candidate is entitled to his own interview-assessment marks and the marking framework; the identity of individual interview-panel members remains protected under §8(1)(g) to prevent pressure or intimidation.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	BPSC, interview marks, §8(1)(g), recruitment
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-witness-protection-2021\|Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-whistleblower-complaint-2019\|Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-whistleblower-protection-2014\|RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)]] (SC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8}}

Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,interview panel,§8(1)(g),BPSC,recruitment)&metatag-description=(Interview-panel member identities protected under §8[1][g] to prevent intimidation; marks disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-12-13 · (2012) 13 SCC 61 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Names of interview-panel members protected under §8(1)(g); candidate's own marks disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-12-13 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2012) 13 SCC 61 \|
	+	^ Bench \| Swatanter Kumar, Madan B. Lokur \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Bihar Public Service Commission \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Interview-panel member identities protected under §8(1)(g) to prevent intimidation; marks disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The identity of members on an interview panel is protected under §8(1)(g) because disclosure could endanger or subject them to pressure. However, the candidate's own marks and the overall evaluation methodology are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	interview panel, §8(1)(g), BPSC, recruitment
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-witness-protection-2021\|Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-whistleblower-protection-2014\|RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)]] (SC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187127108/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8 landmark}}

PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §7,RTI §19,§7(2),deemed refusal,Bombay HC,§19(1))&metatag-description=(A PIO's failure to respond within 30 days is a deemed refusal under §7[2]; First Appeal lies directly.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(2) deemed refusal is a legal fiction that activates §19(1) appeal rights without a written order.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO's failure to respond within 30 days is a deemed refusal under §7(2); First Appeal lies directly.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a PIO fails to provide a response within the §7(1) 30-day window, §7(2) creates a deemed refusal. The applicant is entitled to file a First Appeal under §19(1) without waiting for a formal rejection order, and the FAA must proceed on the merits.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(2), deemed refusal, Bombay HC, §19(1)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-7 section-19}}

PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,§7(8),reasoned order,Bombay HC,speaking order)&metatag-description=(A reasoned order under §7[8][i] must identify the specific §8[1] sub-clause and link it to the factual matrix.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2014-06-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(8)(i) reasoned refusal must cite the specific sub-clause and link it to the facts; bare citation is not enough.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-06-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(8) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A reasoned order under §7(8)(i) must identify the specific §8(1) sub-clause and link it to the factual matrix.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A reasoned order under §7(8)(i) of the Act must identify the specific sub-clause of §8(1) relied upon and demonstrate a nexus with the facts of the application. A bare citation of '§8(1)' is insufficient and liable to be set aside on appeal.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(8), reasoned order, Bombay HC, speaking order
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc\|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-reply-in-wrong-form-2018\|§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018\|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-7 section-8}}

Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §2,aided schools,Bombay HC,§2(h),education)&metatag-description=(Government-aided private schools receiving salary grants are public authorities under §2[h].)}}
	+
	+	====== Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Aided private schools (salary-grant recipients) are public authorities under §2(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Aided private school \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Government-aided private schools receiving salary grants are public authorities under §2(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Private schools that receive salary grants from State governments for their teaching staff are 'substantially financed' within the meaning of §2(h) and are public authorities obliged to comply with the RTI Act.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	aided schools, Bombay HC, §2(h), education
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-2}}

RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §2,Medical Council,§2(h),Bombay HC,statutory councils)&metatag-description=(Statutory professional councils [MCI, Bar Council, State Medical Councils] are 'public authorities' under §2[h].)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Statutory professional councils are public authorities under §2(h); must comply with RTI Act.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Medical Council of India / State Medical Council \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Statutory professional councils (MCI, Bar Council, State Medical Councils) are 'public authorities' under §2(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Statutory professional councils — such as the Medical Council of India, Bar Council, State Medical Councils — are established by statute and exercise regulatory functions. They are 'public authorities' under §2(h) and obliged to comply with the RTI Act.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Medical Council, §2(h), Bombay HC, statutory councils
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-medical-records-of-deceased-2018\|Medical records of deceased relative — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-2}}

§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC,High Court of Bombay RTI,RTI §24,RTI §8,§24 proviso,Bombay HC,corruption,human rights)&metatag-description=(§24 proviso activates for corruption and human-rights violations; CIC Central Govt approval required.)}}
	+
	+	====== §24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Bombay · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§24 exemption does NOT apply to corruption / human-rights complaints — proviso forces disclosure path.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Bombay \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Citizen / complainant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Exempt organisation under §24 \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§24 proviso activates for corruption and human-rights violations; CIC Central Govt approval required.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The proviso to §24 carves out two categories from the exempt-organisation notification — allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Such RTIs proceed via the CIC with Central Government approval; a blanket §24 refusal is not available for them.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§24 proviso, Bombay HC, corruption, human rights
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-mass-surveillance-transparency-2022\|Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-BOM\|All High Court of Bombay rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-bom section-24 section-8}}

RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC,High Court of Calcutta RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,BPL,fee waiver,Calcutta HC,§6(1))&metatag-description=(BPL certificate is a sufficient basis for fee waiver under §6[1]; PIO cannot demand additional proof.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Calcutta · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Production of BPL certificate is sufficient for RTI fee waiver; no additional proof may be demanded.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Calcutta \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| BPL RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	BPL certificate is a sufficient basis for fee waiver under §6(1); PIO cannot demand additional proof.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The statutory scheme under §6(1) read with the RTI Rules provides full fee exemption for below-poverty-line applicants. Production of a BPL certificate is sufficient; a PIO cannot demand an affidavit or additional proof.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	BPL, fee waiver, Calcutta HC, §6(1)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-section-7-3-fee-intimation-2021\|§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-multiple-applications-2021\|Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-CAL\|All High Court of Calcutta rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-cal section-6 section-7}}

PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC,High Court of Calcutta RTI,RTI §5,RTI §7,RTI §20,PIO transfer,Calcutta HC,§7,§20,successor)&metatag-description=(Transfer of the designated PIO during RTI pendency does not extinguish §7 obligations; successor PIO inherits the duty.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Calcutta · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PIO transfer mid-pendency: successor inherits §7 obligation; outgoing PIO's §20 liability crystallised at transfer date.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Calcutta \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Successor PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §7, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Transfer of the designated PIO during RTI pendency does not extinguish §7 obligations; successor PIO inherits the duty.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The statutory obligation under §7 attaches to the office of the PIO, not the individual. When a designated PIO is transferred mid-application, the successor inherits the obligation from the date of charge assumption. Any §20 delay attributable to the outgoing PIO crystallises at their date of departure.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PIO transfer, Calcutta HC, §7, §20, successor
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ineligible-pio-notice-2020\|PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-CAL\|All High Court of Calcutta rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-cal section-5 section-7 section-20}}

Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,RTI §8,answer scripts,CIC,CBSE,UPSC,examinations,§7(1))&metatag-description=(CIC repeatedly directs examination bodies to disclose answer scripts within RTI timelines following Aditya Bandopadhyay.)}}
	+
	+	====== Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2012-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Post-Aditya Bandopadhyay, answer-script disclosure is the rule; CIC enforces §7(1) timelines strictly.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various examinees \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CBSE / UPSC / State Boards \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC repeatedly directs examination bodies to disclose answer scripts within RTI timelines following Aditya Bandopadhyay.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the Supreme Court's Aditya Bandopadhyay ruling, the CIC has repeatedly directed CBSE, UPSC, State PSCs and State Boards to provide access to evaluated answer scripts within standard §7(1) timelines, subject only to reasonable photocopy fees.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	answer scripts, CIC, CBSE, UPSC, examinations, §7(1)
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-union-board-examinations-2019\|Board-examination records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-answer-keys-2020\|Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/upsc-v-angesh-kumar-2018-sc\|UPSC v. Angesh Kumar]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vacancies-anjali-bhardwaj-follow-up-2023\|Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up]] (SC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7 section-8}}

CBSE v. Central Information Commission

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CBSE v. Central Information Commission,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,CBSE,moderation,grace marking,Delhi HC,§2(f))&metatag-description=(CBSE directed to disclose scheme of moderation and grace marking used in examinations.)}}
	+
	+	====== CBSE v. Central Information Commission ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2011-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Moderation & grace-marking schemes are 'information' under §2(f); not exempt as fiduciary.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Bench \| Vipin Sanghi \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| CBSE \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Central Information Commission & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CBSE directed to disclose scheme of moderation and grace marking used in examinations.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Moderation schemes and grace-marking policies used to normalise examination results are 'information' held by the examining body and are disclosable. The fiduciary exemption does not extend to post-examination normalisation policy.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CBSE, moderation, grace marking, Delhi HC, §2(f)
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/icai-vs-shaunak-h-satya\|ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/upsc-v-angesh-kumar-2018-sc\|UPSC v. Angesh Kumar]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cbse-v-paresh-ghadge-cic\|Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1432849/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,§18,§19,complaint,appeal,Commission powers)&metatag-description=(Section 18 [complaint] and Section 19 [appeal] operate in different fields; Commission cannot order disclosure in a §18 complaint.)}}
	+
	+	====== Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2011-12-12 · (2011) 15 SCC 1 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§18 complaint ≠ §19 appeal. Commission cannot direct disclosure of information under §18; only §19 permits that.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-12-12 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2011) 15 SCC 1 \|
	+	^ Bench \| Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Chief Information Commissioner \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State of Manipur & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Section 18 (complaint) and Section 19 (appeal) operate in different fields; Commission cannot order disclosure in a §18 complaint.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The powers of the Commission under §18 (complaint) and §19 (appeal) are distinct. A complaint under §18 is meant for procedural grievances; substantive orders directing disclosure can be made only in an appeal under §19.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§18, §19, complaint, appeal, Commission powers
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-whistleblower-complaint-2019\|Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138115879/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-18 section-19 landmark}}

Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,biometric,Aadhaar,UIDAI,§8(1)(j),CIC)&metatag-description=(Individual biometric data in UIDAI custody absolutely protected under §8[1][j] + Aadhaar Act privacy provisions.)}}
	+
	+	====== Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//UIDAI biometric data absolutely protected; §8(1)(j) + Aadhaar Act privacy override RTI access.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| UIDAI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Individual biometric data in UIDAI custody absolutely protected under §8(1)(j) + Aadhaar Act privacy provisions.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Individual biometric data (fingerprints, iris) in UIDAI custody is absolutely protected under §8(1)(j) read with §28 and §33 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. No public-interest override can compel its disclosure; even the data subject's own biometric template is not released.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	biometric, Aadhaar, UIDAI, §8(1)(j), CIC
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-22-mental-health-act-harmony-2020\|RTI § 22 harmony with special laws]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-whistleblower-complaint-2019\|Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 landmark}}

Blacklisted contractors — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Blacklisted contractors — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,blacklist,debarred contractors,§4,CIC,PSU)&metatag-description=(Blacklisted-contractor lists are §4 proactive-disclosure material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Blacklisted contractors — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Blacklist of contractors & suppliers must be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public sector undertaking \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Blacklisted-contractor lists are §4 proactive-disclosure material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Lists of blacklisted, debarred, or suspended contractors and suppliers are public-interest records. §4(1)(b) requires such lists to be proactively published — including grounds of debarment and the duration.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	blacklist, debarred contractors, §4, CIC, PSU
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-environmental-clearances-rti-2020\|Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/kendriya-vidyalaya-v-cic-2013-del-hc\|Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,mid-day meal,§4(1)(b)(xii),CIC,education)&metatag-description=(Mid-day Meal scheme records — beneficiaries, rations, expenditure — are §4[1][b][xii] material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//MDM scheme records are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy-programme material; must be proactively disclosed.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Parent / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Education department / school \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b)(xii) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Mid-day Meal scheme records — beneficiaries, rations, expenditure — are §4(1)(b)(xii) material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Mid-day Meal scheme is a centrally-sponsored subsidy programme. §4(1)(b)(xii) requires proactive disclosure of beneficiaries enrolled, food-grain and cash component received, and expenditure at the school/block/district level.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	mid-day meal, §4(1)(b)(xii), CIC, education
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/punjab-haryana-hc-scholarship-records-2019\|Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC]] (HC-PB 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-wb-ration-irregularity-2022\|Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC]] (SIC-WB 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-kerala-ration-card-records-2020\|Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC]] (SIC-KL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,charitable trust,§2(h),substantial financing,CIC,Thalappalam)&metatag-description=(Charitable trusts receiving substantial State grants come within §2[h], following Thalappalam test.)}}
	+
	+	====== Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Trusts receiving substantial State financing are public authorities under §2(h) — Thalappalam applied.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Charitable Trust \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Charitable trusts receiving substantial State grants come within §2(h), following Thalappalam test.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A charitable trust receiving grant-in-aid, land allotment at concessional rates, or other substantial State benefits falls within §2(h) 'substantially financed' prong of the Thalappalam test.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	charitable trust, §2(h), substantial financing, CIC, Thalappalam
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2}}

Departmental proceedings records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Departmental proceedings records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,disciplinary,CCS(CCA),§8(1)(h),CIC,service)&metatag-description=(Pending departmental proceedings protected under §8[1][h]; concluded proceedings disclosable to the officer concerned.)}}
	+
	+	====== Departmental proceedings records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Active disciplinary proceedings: §8(1)(h) applies. Concluded proceedings: disclosable to the affected officer.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Affected officer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Disciplinary authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Pending departmental proceedings protected under §8(1)(h); concluded proceedings disclosable to the officer concerned.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Records of pending departmental inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules are protected under §8(1)(h). Once the inquiry concludes (charge-sheet, inquiry report, competent authority's final order), all records are disclosable to the officer concerned.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	disciplinary, CCS(CCA), §8(1)(h), CIC, service
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/khanapuram-gandaiah\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-question-paper-leak-investigations-2021\|Question-paper-leak investigation records]] (SC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Electoral roll copies — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Electoral roll copies — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,electoral rolls,ERO,CIC,Representation of People)&metatag-description=(Electoral rolls are public records; copies available through statutory ERO-level process [RTI is supplementary].)}}
	+
	+	====== Electoral roll copies — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Electoral rolls are public records; primary route is ERO/Form-001, RTI is a residual supplement.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Election Commission / ERO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Electoral rolls are public records; copies available through statutory ERO-level process (RTI is supplementary).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Electoral rolls are public records available for inspection at the Electoral Registration Officer's office under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. An RTI route is supplementary where the statutory route fails; the PIO may point to the source under the §4 disclosure framework.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	electoral rolls, ERO, CIC, Representation of People
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-electoral-rolls-data-2023\|Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-electoral-funding-2023\|Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel]] (CIC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,EIA,environmental clearance,§4,CIC,MoEFCC)&metatag-description=(EIA reports, public-hearing records and environmental clearances are §4 proactive-disclosure material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//EIA reports + public-hearing records are §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure — must be published.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Environmental activist \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MoEF / SEIAA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	EIA reports, public-hearing records and environmental clearances are §4 proactive-disclosure material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Environmental Impact Assessment reports, public-hearing records, and Environmental Clearance letters issued by MoEFCC/SEIAA are documents of public concern under §4(1)(b). They must be proactively published on the relevant portal; any §8 carve-out must be narrowly applied.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	EIA, environmental clearance, §4, CIC, MoEFCC
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-goa-rti-mining-leases-2021\|Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC]] (SIC-GA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-25-annual-report-cic-2019\|§25 annual report — disclosure obligation]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-answer-keys-2020\|Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-blacklisted-companies-rti-2017\|Blacklisted contractors — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,FCRA,NGO,MHA,§2(h),CIC)&metatag-description=(FCRA-registered NGOs are not public authorities per se; but the MHA holds compliance records disclosable under RTI.)}}
	+
	+	====== Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//FCRA-registered NGOs aren't §2(h); but MHA's compliance records on them ARE disclosable under RTI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MHA / NGO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	FCRA-registered NGOs are not public authorities per se; but the MHA holds compliance records disclosable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An NGO registered under the FCRA is not a 'public authority' under §2(h) by that registration alone. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs holds their foreign-contribution returns and compliance records — these are records of a public authority and disclosable subject to §8(1)(d) privacy carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FCRA, NGO, MHA, §2(h), 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,FCRA,NGO returns,MHA,CIC)&metatag-description=(Annual FCRA returns of NGOs filed with MHA are public records disclosable under RTI.)}}
	+
	+	====== FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//FCRA annual returns filed with MHA are public records — foreign-source, purpose-use disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MHA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Annual FCRA returns of NGOs filed with MHA are public records disclosable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Under §4(1)(b) read with FCRA Rules, the annual returns (FC-4) filed by foreign-contribution recipient NGOs with MHA are public compliance records. Purpose-of-use, donor name, and utilisation details are disclosable subject to narrow §8(1)(d) carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FCRA, NGO returns, MHA, 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-goa-rti-mining-leases-2021\|Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC]] (SIC-GA 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

GST Council — public authority status (CIC)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(GST Council — public authority status (CIC),Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,GST Council,§2(h),CIC,minutes)&metatag-description=(GST Council Secretariat is a 'public authority' under §2[h]; minutes of meetings disclosable subject to §8[1][i] time-lag.)}}
	+
	+	====== GST Council — public authority status (CIC) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//GST Council is a §2(h) public authority; minutes disclosable subject to §8(1)(i) cabinet-deliberation timing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| GST Council Secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	GST Council Secretariat is a 'public authority' under §2(h); minutes of meetings disclosable subject to §8(1)(i) time-lag.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The GST Council, constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution with its own secretariat, is a public authority under §2(h). Its meeting agenda and minutes are disclosable; ongoing-deliberation content may be temporarily withheld under §8(1)(i) until decisions are taken.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	GST Council, §2(h), CIC, minutes
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2}}

PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §5,RTI §20,PIO vacancy,§5,§20,vicarious liability,CIC)&metatag-description=(When a designated PIO is unavailable [leave/vacancy], the Head of Institution becomes liable under §20.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PIO vacancy/leave doesn't pause §7 duty; Head of Institution carries vicarious §20 liability.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	When a designated PIO is unavailable (leave/vacancy), the Head of Institution becomes liable under §20.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Vacancy or long leave of a designated PIO does not pause the public authority's §7 obligation. The Head of Institution is statutorily obliged to ensure a substitute PIO is notified or to discharge the duty personally; default attracts vicarious §20 liability.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PIO vacancy, §5, §20, vicarious liability, 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-5 section-20}}

Hospital inspection reports — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Hospital inspection reports — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,hospitals,inspection reports,CIC,public health)&metatag-description=(Routine inspection and regulatory-compliance reports of hospitals are public-health records — disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Hospital inspection reports — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Hospital / nursing-home inspection reports are public-interest compliance records — disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Hospital / Medical authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Routine inspection and regulatory-compliance reports of hospitals are public-health records — disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Inspection reports prepared by Drugs Control, CGHS, State Medical Councils and similar regulatory bodies on hospitals and nursing homes are compliance records. They are disclosable as public-health information, with narrow §8(1)(j) carve-outs for individual patient data.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	hospitals, inspection reports, CIC, public health
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra,Central Information Commission (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §2,Indian Olympic Association,public authority,substantial financing,§2(h))&metatag-description=(IOA held a 'public authority' under §2[h] due to substantial state support.)}}
	+
	+	====== Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission (Full Bench) · 2013-04-11 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Substantial financing includes concessional benefits (land, rates); IOA brought under §2(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-04-11 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Indian Olympic Association \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Harinder Dhingra \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	IOA held a 'public authority' under §2(h) due to substantial state support.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	'Substantial financing' extends to indirect State benefits such as concessional land allotments, tax exemptions and equipment grants — not only direct cash grants.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Indian Olympic Association, public authority, substantial financing, §2(h)
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 landmark}}

Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,judicial academy,§2(h),CIC,training)&metatag-description=(National and State Judicial Academies are 'public authorities' under §2[h]; training curricula and expense accounts disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Judicial academies are §2(h) public authorities; curricula, faculty lists, and accounts disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| National/State Judicial Academy \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	National and State Judicial Academies are 'public authorities' under §2(h); training curricula and expense accounts disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	National and State Judicial Academies, established by the judiciary with State funding, are 'public authorities' under §2(h). Training curricula, faculty lists, research output, and annual accounts are disclosable subject to normal §8 carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	judicial academy, §2(h), CIC, training
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/khanapuram-gandaiah\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/namit-sharma-vs-uoi\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-namit-sharma-review-2013-sc\|Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review)]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2}}

Medical records of deceased relative — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Medical records of deceased relative — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,medical records,deceased,next-of-kin,§8(1)(j),§8(2),CIC)&metatag-description=(Medical records of a deceased relative disclosable to next-of-kin subject to §8[2] public-interest balancing.)}}
	+
	+	====== Medical records of deceased relative — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Next-of-kin may access deceased's medical records subject to §8(2) balancing; §8(1)(j) narrowly applied.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Relative of deceased patient \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Government Hospital \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Medical records of a deceased relative disclosable to next-of-kin subject to §8(2) public-interest balancing.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Medical records of a deceased person are not absolutely protected under §8(1)(j). Next-of-kin may access them subject to public-interest balancing under §8(2). Post-DPDP 2025, the framework retains the balancing test through §8(2).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	medical records, deceased, next-of-kin, §8(1)(j), §8(2), CIC
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-cpio-v-subhash-collegium-files-2019\|CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,foreign travel,ministers,CIC,public expenditure)&metatag-description=(Minister's / senior officer's official foreign-travel records [destination, purpose, expenditure] disclosable as public-money records.)}}
	+
	+	====== Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Ministers' / senior officials' foreign-travel details (purpose, cost, dates) are public-money records — disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry / PMO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Minister's / senior officer's official foreign-travel records (destination, purpose, expenditure) disclosable as public-money records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Ministers' and senior officers' foreign-travel details on official business — destination, dates, delegation composition, expenditure — are records of public monies and disclosable. Personal-travel details remain protected under §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	foreign travel, ministers, CIC, public expenditure
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013,Central Information Commission (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §2,political parties,public authority,§2(h),CIC Full Bench)&metatag-description=(CIC held six national political parties to be 'public authorities' under §2[h]. Parties have not complied.)}}
	+
	+	====== Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission (Full Bench) · 2013-06-03 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Six national political parties ruled public authorities under §2(h); compliance remains unresolved.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-06-03 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal et al. \|
	+	^ Respondent \| 6 National Political Parties \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC held six national political parties to be 'public authorities' under §2(h). Parties have not complied.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Political parties receive substantial indirect financing (tax exemptions, concessional land, free air-time). They are public authorities under §2(h) and answerable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	political parties, public authority, §2(h), CIC Full Bench
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-sports-body-2018\|National sports federations — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 landmark}}

RTI replies in accessible formats for PwD — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI replies in accessible formats for PwD — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,disability,§7(4),accessibility,CIC,Braille)&metatag-description=(§7[4] requires PIOs to provide information in accessible formats for persons with sensory disability.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI replies in accessible formats for PwD — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(4) mandates PIOs provide information in accessible formats (Braille/audio/screen-readable) for PwD.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Person with disability \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(4) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§7(4) requires PIOs to provide information in accessible formats for persons with sensory disability.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§7(4) places an obligation on PIOs to provide assistance to persons with sensory disability to access information. This includes Braille output, audio recordings, screen-reader-compatible digital formats, and assisted inspection.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	disability, §7(4), accessibility, CIC, Braille
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-electoral-rolls-data-2023\|Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7}}

Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,recruitment,interview panel,§8(1)(g),CIC,scores)&metatag-description=(Interviewer identity protected under §8[1][g]; candidate's own score, rank and general evaluation framework disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Interviewer names are §8(1)(g) protected; candidate's own score + framework disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Recruiting body \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Interviewer identity protected under §8(1)(g); candidate's own score, rank and general evaluation framework disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following Bihar PSC v. Rizwi (SC 2012), the CIC protects interview-panel member identities under §8(1)(g). The candidate's own interview score, the marking framework, and aggregate marks are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	recruitment, interview panel, §8(1)(g), CIC, scores
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/upsc-v-angesh-kumar-2018-sc\|UPSC v. Angesh Kumar]] (SC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,frivolous,vexatious,§6(2),CIC)&metatag-description=(CIC declined to recognise any 'frivolous / abusive RTI' exclusion — §6[2] bars such inquiry.)}}
	+
	+	====== Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//No statutory 'frivolous / vexatious' exception exists under RTI; §6(2) bars motive inquiry.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC declined to recognise any 'frivolous / abusive RTI' exclusion — §6(2) bars such inquiry.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The RTI Act does not provide for refusal on the ground that the applicant's filings are 'frivolous', 'vexatious' or 'abusive'. §6(2) expressly bars inquiry into motive. The sole route to refusal is a §8 carve-out.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	frivolous, vexatious, §6(2), 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-6 section-7}}

Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,selection committee,recruitment,§8(1)(e),CIC)&metatag-description=(Selection-committee minutes protected during deliberation; final recommendation + successful candidate's score disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//SSC minutes during deliberation are §8(1)(e) protected; final recommendation + outcome disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Unsuccessful candidate / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Recruiting body \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e), §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Selection-committee minutes protected during deliberation; final recommendation + successful candidate's score disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Internal deliberations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee are protected under §8(1)(e) during the selection process. Once the selection is final, the recommendation, rank list and the successful candidate's score are disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	selection committee, recruitment, §8(1)(e), 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-parliamentary-committee-2017\|Parliamentary committee records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,Cabinet note,§8(1)(i),CIC,post-decision)&metatag-description=(Cabinet Note disclosable once the decision is announced and the matter concluded [per //R.K. Jain// SC 2013].)}}
	+
	+	====== Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Cabinet note disclosable after decision announced; §8(1)(i) is not a permanent bar — per //R.K. Jain// (SC 2013).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Cabinet Secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(i) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Cabinet Note disclosable once the decision is announced and the matter concluded (per //R.K. Jain// SC 2013).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Applying //R.K. Jain// (SC 2013), a Cabinet Note becomes disclosable after the Cabinet decision is taken and announced, and the matter is concluded. The PIO must perform the §8(1)(i) test at the date of the RTI application — not treat cabinet material as permanently secret.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Cabinet note, §8(1)(i), CIC, post-decision
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/r-k-jain-vs-uoi\|R.K. Jain v. Union of India]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-state-cabinet-2020\|State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/rajeev-mankotia-v-cic-2012-del-hc\|Rajeev Mankotia v. CIC (file notings)]] (HC-DEL 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §11,PSU,commercial confidence,§8(1)(d),CIC,tender)&metatag-description=(PSU's commercial terms with private vendors protected under §8[1][d]; summary award details disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PSU commercial-terms details are §8(1)(d) protected; summary tender-award data disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Competitor / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public-sector undertaking \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	PSU's commercial terms with private vendors protected under §8(1)(d); summary award details disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Commercial terms in a PSU's contracts with private vendors — pricing schedules, royalty rates, IP licences — are protected under §8(1)(d). Tender-award summary data (winner, amount, delivery timeline) is typically disclosable, subject to §11 third-party notice.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PSU, commercial confidence, §8(1)(d), CIC, tender
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-tender-records-2016\|Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-sovereign-wealth-fund-2022\|NIIF / sovereign-wealth records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-tn-municipal-works-2021\|Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC]] (SIC-TN 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=11\|All RTI cases turning on §11]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-11}}

§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide,Central Information Commission (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,§18,§19,complaint vs appeal,CIC Full Bench)&metatag-description=(§18 complaint: procedural/non-appointment/non-compliance. §19 appeal: substantive denial of information.)}}
	+
	+	====== §18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission (Full Bench) · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§18 complaint: procedural grievance. §19 appeal: substantive denial. Direct §18 for disclosure = not maintainable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§18 complaint: procedural/non-appointment/non-compliance. §19 appeal: substantive denial of information.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The CIC Full Bench reaffirmed the //CIC v. Manipur// (SC 2011) divide: §18 complaints address procedural failures (no PIO appointed, no response even after 30 days), while §19 appeals address substantive refusal. A §18 complaint cannot be used to secure disclosure; that is the §19 path.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§18, §19, complaint vs appeal, CIC Full Bench
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-whistleblower-complaint-2019\|Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-18 section-19}}

Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,sealed cover,§8(1)(b),CIC,contempt)&metatag-description=(Information expressly forbidden from disclosure by a court's sealed-cover / in-camera order is §8[1][b] protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Sealed-cover / in-camera court orders trigger §8(1)(b) protection until the court's order is varied.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Various public authorities \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Information expressly forbidden from disclosure by a court's sealed-cover / in-camera order is §8(1)(b) protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(b) expressly protects information whose disclosure has been forbidden by any court or tribunal, or whose disclosure would constitute contempt of court. The PIO must cite the specific court order being honoured; blanket invocation is not sufficient.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	sealed cover, §8(1)(b), CIC, contempt
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-contempt-of-commission-2020\|Defying Commission order — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-whistleblower-protection-2014\|RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)]] (SC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,CVC,vigilance circulars,§4(1)(b)(v),CIC)&metatag-description=(CVC circulars, vigilance guidelines, and disciplinary policy documents are public records disclosable under §4.)}}
	+
	+	====== CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CVC / vigilance POLICY circulars are §4 public records; individual case files remain §8(1)(h) protected during pendency.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CVC / vigilance unit \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CVC circulars, vigilance guidelines, and disciplinary policy documents are public records disclosable under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	CVC circulars, vigilance manual updates, and disciplinary-policy guidelines govern the public authority's own functioning and are disclosable under §4(1)(b)(v) (rules, regulations, instructions). Individual vigilance case files remain protected under §8(1)(h) during pendency and §8(1)(j) thereafter.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CVC, vigilance circulars, §4(1)(b)(v), 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-cpio-v-subhash-collegium-files-2019\|CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,cyber incident,CIC,§8(1)(a),§8(1)(h),CERT-In)&metatag-description=(Cyber-incident details against a public authority: executive summary disclosable post-remediation; live-investigation material protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2023-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Cyber-incident reports: executive summary post-remediation OK; live forensic content §8(1)(h) protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority (victim) \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a), §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Cyber-incident details against a public authority: executive summary disclosable post-remediation; live-investigation material protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a public authority suffers a cyber-incident, the existence, date, nature (ransomware/data-exfiltration), and remediation status are disclosable post-remediation as accountability records. Live forensic content and specific IOCs remain protected under §8(1)(a) / §8(1)(h).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	cyber incident, CIC, §8(1)(a), §8(1)(h), CERT-In
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Diplomatic correspondence — §8(1)(a) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Diplomatic correspondence — §8(1)(a) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,diplomatic,MEA,§8(1)(a),sovereignty)&metatag-description=(Active diplomatic correspondence and bilateral-negotiation records protected under §8[1][a] sovereignty / strategic interests.)}}
	+
	+	====== Diplomatic correspondence — §8(1)(a) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Live diplomatic cables & bilateral-negotiation content are §8(1)(a) protected (sovereignty and strategic interest).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of External Affairs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Active diplomatic correspondence and bilateral-negotiation records protected under §8(1)(a) sovereignty / strategic interests.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Active diplomatic correspondence and records of ongoing bilateral negotiations are protected under §8(1)(a) — sovereignty and integrity of India, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State. The protection applies during the active-diplomacy phase; historical archives may be disclosable on a case-by-case basis.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	diplomatic, MEA, §8(1)(a), sovereignty
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cyber-attacks-public-authority-2023\|Cyber-incident records of public authority — CIC]] (CIC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,Electoral Bonds,SBI,Election Commission,post-ADR)&metatag-description=(Post-SC Electoral Bonds ruling: RTI applications for donor / recipient data are allowed; SBI directed to comply.)}}
	+
	+	====== Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2024-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Post-ADR (Electoral Bonds 2024): RTI disclosures of donor + political-party receipt data now permissible.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2024-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Election Commission / SBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Post-SC Electoral Bonds ruling: RTI applications for donor / recipient data are allowed; SBI directed to comply.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the Supreme Court's ADR ruling (2024) striking down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, RTI applications seeking donor names, amounts, encashment dates, and political-party recipient data are permissible. SBI and the Election Commission directed to comply.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Electoral Bonds, SBI, Election Commission, post-ADR
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-electoral-roll-rti-2016\|Electoral roll copies — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-electoral-rolls-data-2023\|Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC]] (SC 2023)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-political-parties-2013\|Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8 landmark}}

EPFO account records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(EPFO account records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,EPF,EPFO,CIC,retirement)&metatag-description=(Member's own EPF account records — contributions, withdrawals, interest — fully disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== EPFO account records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//EPF member's own account data fully accessible under RTI; portal is supplementary.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Member / EPF account holder \|
	+	^ Respondent \| EPFO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Member's own EPF account records — contributions, withdrawals, interest — fully disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	An EPF member is entitled to complete records of his own account — contribution history, employer shares, interest credits, withdrawal requests — under RTI. The EPFO member portal provides this as a matter of routine; RTI is a supplementary route for disputes.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	EPF, EPFO, CIC, retirement
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pension-commutation-2020\|Pension commutation records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-electoral-roll-rti-2016\|Electoral roll copies — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-8}}

Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,foreign confidential,§8(1)(f),CIC)&metatag-description=(Information received in confidence from foreign governments protected under §8[1][f] regardless of age.)}}
	+
	+	====== Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§8(1)(f) protects information received in confidence from foreign governments — duration-agnostic.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of External Affairs / Central Government \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Information received in confidence from foreign governments protected under §8(1)(f) regardless of age.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(f) protects information received in confidence from foreign governments without a time-limit. The §8(3) 20-year sunset explicitly excludes §8(1)(a), (c), (i) but §8(1)(f) is not listed — however, the confidentiality undertaking typically survives longer than any sunset.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	foreign confidential, §8(1)(f), 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018\|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-3-citizen-not-person-2012\|§3 — right available to 'citizens', not 'persons']] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,FCRA,MHA,aggregate,CIC,NGO)&metatag-description=(MHA's aggregate FCRA statistics — total NGOs, foreign donors, top recipients, cancellations — §4 proactive disclosure.)}}
	+
	+	====== FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//MHA aggregate FCRA stats + cancellation list = §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Journalist / researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MHA \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	MHA's aggregate FCRA statistics — total NGOs, foreign donors, top recipients, cancellations — §4 proactive disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Ministry of Home Affairs aggregate FCRA statistics — total registered NGOs, country-wise donor distribution, top recipients, list of cancellations — are §4(1)(b) material. Individual NGO's specific donor list is disclosable subject to narrow commercial / privacy carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FCRA, MHA, aggregate, CIC, NGO
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-aid-ngo-2017\|Foreign-funded NGOs — FCRA + RTI]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018\|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

IIT / NIT admission data — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(IIT / NIT admission data — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §8,IIT,NIT,admission,§4,CIC)&metatag-description=(IIT/NIT admission records — cutoffs, branch-fill-up, seat-matrix — are public records disclosable under §4.)}}
	+
	+	====== IIT / NIT admission data — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//IIT / NIT cutoffs, branch-filling & seat-matrix are §4 proactive-disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate / parent \|
	+	^ Respondent \| IIT / NIT / CoE \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	IIT/NIT admission records — cutoffs, branch-fill-up, seat-matrix — are public records disclosable under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Centrally-funded technical institutions are public authorities. Admission-related aggregate data — round-wise cutoffs, category-wise opening/closing ranks, branch filling, seat utilisation — is §4(1)(b) material. Individual candidate data is §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	IIT, NIT, admission, §4, 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/kendriya-vidyalaya-v-cic-2013-del-hc\|Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rbi-moratorium-2021\|RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4 section-8}}

Judges' salary / allowances — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Judges' salary / allowances — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,judges salary,CIC,§4(1)(b)(x))&metatag-description=(Judges' statutory salary, allowances and post-retirement benefits are public records — disclosable under §4.)}}
	+
	+	====== Judges' salary / allowances — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Judges' statutory pay + allowances + post-retirement benefits = §4 public records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher \|
	+	^ Respondent \| HC/SC Registry \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Judges' statutory salary, allowances and post-retirement benefits are public records — disclosable under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Salaries, allowances and post-retirement benefits of Supreme Court and High Court judges are prescribed by statute (Judges Salaries and Conditions of Service Acts) — public records. §4(1)(b)(x) requires proactive publication of the monthly remuneration structure.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	judges salary, CIC, §4(1)(b)(x)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/secretary-general-supreme-court-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal-2009-del-hc\|Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-private-school-rti-2019\|Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-8}}

Pension commutation records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Pension commutation records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,pension,commutation,CIC,retirement)&metatag-description=(Retiree's own pension commutation calculations, restoration dates and arrears records fully disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Pension commutation records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Retiree entitled to own pension commutation + arrears records; §8(1)(j) does not apply to data subject.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Retiree \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Accounts authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Retiree's own pension commutation calculations, restoration dates and arrears records fully disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A retiree's own commutation calculation, the date of restoration, DCRG worksheet, leave encashment and arrears records are fully disclosable to him under RTI. §8(1)(j) cannot be invoked against the data subject himself. Departmental delay attracts §20 liability.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	pension, commutation, CIC, retirement
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-records-2021\|EPFO account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-8}}

Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,answer keys,SSC,UPSC,§8(1)(e),CIC)&metatag-description=(Recruitment-exam answer keys published during objection window become public documents — §8[1][e] does not bar disclosure of final answer keys.)}}
	+
	+	====== Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Final answer keys of recruitment exams are public records; §8(1)(e) does not apply to the published final version.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| candidate \|
	+	^ Respondent \| SSC / UPSC / State PSC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Recruitment-exam answer keys published during objection window become public documents — §8(1)(e) does not bar disclosure of final answer keys.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Recruitment-examination answer keys, once published for candidate objections and finalised, are public records. The fiduciary carve-out under §8(1)(e) (from //ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//) applies to the internal preparation process — not to the published final answer key.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	answer keys, SSC, UPSC, §8(1)(e), 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cbse-v-paresh-ghadge-cic\|Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-union-board-examinations-2019\|Board-examination records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-8}}

SEBI inspection records — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(SEBI inspection records — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,SEBI,§8(1)(d),§8(1)(e),CIC,regulator)&metatag-description=(SEBI inspection records disclosable under //Jayantilal Mistry// rationale; commercially-confidential trading data protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== SEBI inspection records — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//SEBI inspection records disclosable; commercial trading data protected under §8(1)(d).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| SEBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	SEBI inspection records disclosable under //Jayantilal Mistry// rationale; commercially-confidential trading data protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the Supreme Court's rationale in //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2015), SEBI's inspection reports on regulated entities are disclosable. Pure commercial trading data (open interest positions, client identities) remains protected under §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	SEBI, §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e), CIC, regulator
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Smart-city project details — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Smart-city project details — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,Smart City,§2(h),CIC,SPV,urban development)&metatag-description=(Smart City SPV is a public authority; project-wise budget, contractor, timeline and progress disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Smart-city project details — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Smart City SPVs are §2(h) public authorities; project budgets + progress = §4 disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Resident / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Smart City SPV \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Smart City SPV is a public authority; project-wise budget, contractor, timeline and progress disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Smart City Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) are substantially funded by the Central Government and state/municipal corporations. They are public authorities under §2(h). Project-wise budget, tender awards, contractor names, physical-progress milestones and utilisation certificates are §4(1)(b) material.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Smart City, §2(h), CIC, SPV, urban development
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-admissions-2020\|IIT / NIT admission data — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-tn-municipal-works-2021\|Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC]] (SIC-TN 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-political-parties-2013\|Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-4}}

State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,State cabinet,§8(1)(i),CIC)&metatag-description=(§8[1][i] applies to State cabinets mutatis mutandis; post-decision disclosability is the rule.)}}
	+
	+	====== State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//State cabinet minutes: §8(1)(i) applies with same post-decision disclosability rule.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State cabinet secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(i) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(i) applies to State cabinets mutatis mutandis; post-decision disclosability is the rule.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(i) of the RTI Act — by reference to 'Council of Ministers' — applies equally to State Councils of Ministers. The //R.K. Jain// post-decision-disclosure rule governs State cabinets mutatis mutandis.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	State cabinet, §8(1)(i), 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cabinet-note-after-decision-2022\|Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/r-k-jain-vs-uoi\|R.K. Jain v. Union of India]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,subordinate court,judge transfer,CIC,§8(1)(j))&metatag-description=(Subordinate-court judge postings/transfers: aggregate data disclosable; reasons behind specific transfer may be §8[1][j] protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Subordinate judge transfer lists disclosable; individual reasons protected under §8(1)(j).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Litigant / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| HC Registry \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Subordinate-court judge postings/transfers: aggregate data disclosable; reasons behind specific transfer may be §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Name-designation-posting data of subordinate judges is disclosable (public record maintained by the HC Registry). Reasons behind a specific transfer — discipline, preference, health — are personal information under §8(1)(j) subject to §8(2) balancing.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	subordinate court, judge transfer, CIC, §8(1)(j)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018\|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,Co-WIN,vaccination,CIC,DPDP)&metatag-description=(Aggregate vaccination data [state/district/dose-type] disclosable; individual Co-WIN records §8[1][j] + DPDP protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Vaccination aggregates disclosable; individual Co-WIN data is §8(1)(j) + DPDP protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MoHFW / Co-WIN \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Aggregate vaccination data (state/district/dose-type) disclosable; individual Co-WIN records §8(1)(j) + DPDP protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	COVID-vaccination aggregate data — doses by state, district, vaccine type — is §4 proactive disclosure material. Individual vaccination records stored on Co-WIN are personal health data under §8(1)(j), post-DPDP reinforced; accessible only to the data subject.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Co-WIN, vaccination, CIC, DPDP
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rbi-moratorium-2021\|RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-admissions-2020\|IIT / NIT admission data — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-biometric-data-rti-2019\|Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,witness protection,§8(1)(g),CIC,informant)&metatag-description=(Identity of witnesses and informants in active investigations protected under §8[1][g] for life and safety.)}}
	+
	+	====== Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§8(1)(g) protects witness/informant identity where disclosure could endanger them.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Defence counsel / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Investigating agency \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Identity of witnesses and informants in active investigations protected under §8(1)(g) for life and safety.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(g) protects information whose disclosure would endanger life or physical safety — including witness and informant identity in investigations. Protection continues post-investigation where the witness remains at risk.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	witness protection, §8(1)(g), CIC, informant
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-whistleblower-protection-2014\|RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-whistleblower-complaint-2019\|Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-public-service-commission-v-saiyed-hussain-abbas-rizwi-2012-sc\|Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-question-paper-leak-investigations-2021\|Question-paper-leak investigation records]] (SC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §11,§11,40 days,timeline,third party,CIC)&metatag-description=(CIC consistently enforces 40-day total timeline for §11-triggered RTIs [30 days + 10 days third-party consultation].)}}
	+
	+	====== §11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2011-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§11-triggered RTIs: 30 + 10 = 40-day total. Exceeding it without reasons attracts §20.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various PIOs \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §11 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CIC consistently enforces 40-day total timeline for §11-triggered RTIs (30 days + 10 days third-party consultation).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	For a request that triggers §11 third-party consultation, the total disposal timeline is 40 days (30 standard + 10 for third-party representation). PIOs exceeding this without written justification face §20 liability.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§11, 40 days, timeline, third party, 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-caste-validity-certificate-2020\|Caste-validity certificate records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=11\|All RTI cases turning on §11]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-7 section-11}}

Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §12,RTI §15,RTI §16,vacancies,Information Commission,Anjali Bhardwaj,follow-up)&metatag-description=(SC reinforces Anjali Bhardwaj directions; issues fresh timelines for filling CIC/SIC vacancies.)}}
	+
	+	====== Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2023-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Follow-up to Anjali Bhardwaj — SC issues fresh timelines for ICs' vacancy filling.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Anjali Bhardwaj \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Union of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §12, §15, §16 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	SC reinforces Anjali Bhardwaj directions; issues fresh timelines for filling CIC/SIC vacancies.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Supreme Court in the 2023 follow-up reaffirmed the 2019 Anjali Bhardwaj directions and issued fresh timelines for the Central and State governments to fill CIC/SIC vacancies. Selection Committee meetings must be timely.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	vacancies, Information Commission, Anjali Bhardwaj, follow-up
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cbse-v-paresh-ghadge-cic\|Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-information-officer-recruitment-2020\|Information Officer recruitment data — SC]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-namit-sharma-review-2013-sc\|Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review)]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-25-annual-report-cic-2019\|§25 annual report — disclosure obligation]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=12\|All RTI cases turning on §12]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=15\|All RTI cases turning on §15]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=16\|All RTI cases turning on §16]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-12 section-15 section-16}}

D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,§2(h),educational institutions,substantial financing,DAV)&metatag-description=(Non-government educational trusts receiving substantial government aid are 'public authorities' under §2[h].)}}
	+
	+	====== D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2019-09-17 · (2019) 9 SCC 185 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Non-govt colleges receiving substantial State financing fall within §2(h); must appoint PIOs.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-09-17 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2019) 9 SCC 185 \|
	+	^ Bench \| L. Nageswara Rao, Deepak Gupta \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| D.A.V. College Trust \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) & Ors. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Non-government educational trusts receiving substantial government aid are 'public authorities' under §2(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Educational institutions, including non-government colleges, that receive substantial government aid — measured against their overall operating budget — are 'public authorities' under §2(h) and must comply with the RTI Act.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§2(h), educational institutions, substantial financing, DAV
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-private-school-rti-2019\|Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27459334/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-2 landmark}}

DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,DPDP 2025,§8(1)(j),§8(2),Delhi HC,personal information)&metatag-description=(Post-14-November-2025, §8[1][j] protects all personal information; public-interest override flows through §8[2].)}}
	+
	+	====== DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2025-12-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Post-DPDP 2025: §8(1)(j) exempts personal info absolutely; override by §8(2), not the old proviso.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2025-12-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j), §8(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Post-14-November-2025, §8(1)(j) protects all personal information; public-interest override flows through §8(2).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following the DPDP Rules, 2025 amendment to §8(1)(j), personal information of any person is exempt from disclosure. The public-interest override moves out of the old §8(1)(j) proviso and into §8(2) as a balancing provision.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	DPDP 2025, §8(1)(j), §8(2), Delhi HC, personal information
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8 landmark}}

PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §5,RTI §20,§5,PIO designation,Delhi HC,§20)&metatag-description=(Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7[1] obligations.)}}
	+
	+	====== PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Non-designation of PIO under §5 is no defence; §7(1) obligations bind the public authority itself.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §5, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7(1) obligations.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where a public authority has failed to designate a PIO under §5, the statutory obligations under §7(1) continue to bind the public authority. Failure attracts §20 liability traceable to the Head of Institution.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§5, PIO designation, Delhi HC, §20
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-ineligible-pio-notice-2020\|PIO unavailable — Head-of-Institution vicarious liability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=5\|All RTI cases turning on §5]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-5 section-20}}

Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,RTI §24,armed forces,§8(1)(a),§24,Delhi HC,military)&metatag-description=(Armed forces: operational records §8[1][a] + §24 exempt; personnel/pension records of own service accessible.)}}
	+
	+	====== Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Armed-forces operational records §8(1)(a) + §24 exempt; own personnel + pension records accessible.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Serving / retired officer \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Ministry of Defence / Service HQ \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a), §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Armed forces: operational records §8(1)(a) + §24 exempt; personnel/pension records of own service accessible.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Armed-forces operational records — deployment, unit movement, weapons inventory — are protected under §8(1)(a) and via §24 exempt-organisation notification. Personnel records of own service (promotion board outcomes, pension orders, gratuity calculations) remain accessible to the concerned officer.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	armed forces, §8(1)(a), §24, Delhi HC, military
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-mass-surveillance-transparency-2022\|Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pension-commutation-2020\|Pension commutation records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8 section-24}}

Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,Bar Council,§2(h),Delhi HC,Advocates Act)&metatag-description=(Bar Council of India is a statutory body and §2[h] public authority; enrolment data and disciplinary records disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Bar Council of India is §2(h) public authority; enrolment + disciplinary outcomes disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Advocate / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Bar Council of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Bar Council of India is a statutory body and §2(h) public authority; enrolment data and disciplinary records disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Bar Council of India, constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961, is a statutory body exercising regulatory functions over the legal profession. It is a 'public authority' under §2(h). Enrolment rolls, disciplinary proceedings outcomes, and council meetings are disclosable subject to narrow §8 carve-outs.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Bar Council, §2(h), Delhi HC, Advocates Act
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/secretary-general-supreme-court-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal-2009-del-hc\|Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2}}

Caste-validity certificate records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Caste-validity certificate records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,caste validity,Delhi HC,§8(1)(j),scrutiny)&metatag-description=(Own caste-validity record accessible; third-party caste-certificate verification records §8[1][j] protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Caste-validity certificate records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Own caste-validity record accessible; third-party caste certificates are §8(1)(j) protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Applicant / complainant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Caste Scrutiny Committee \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Own caste-validity record accessible; third-party caste-certificate verification records §8(1)(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A person's own caste-validity-certificate file — application, supporting documents, committee order — is disclosable to him. A third party cannot obtain another's caste-validity documents via RTI except on a §8(2) public-interest showing.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	caste validity, Delhi HC, §8(1)(j), scrutiny
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-7 section-8}}

CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §24,RTI §8,CBI,§24,exempt organisation,Delhi HC,corruption proviso)&metatag-description=(CBI falls within §24 exempt organisations, subject to the corruption and human-rights proviso.)}}
	+
	+	====== CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CBI is exempt under §24, but allegations of corruption or human rights violations override the exemption.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	CBI falls within §24 exempt organisations, subject to the corruption and human-rights proviso.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The CBI is notified as an exempt organisation under the Second Schedule read with §24. However, the proviso to §24 carves out information relating to corruption and human rights violations, which remains accessible subject to approval.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CBI, §24, exempt organisation, Delhi HC, corruption proviso
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-section-24-proviso-2018\|§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-mass-surveillance-transparency-2022\|Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-24 section-8}}

Driving-licence / vehicle registration records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Driving-licence / vehicle registration records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,driving licence,RTO,Delhi HC,§8(1)(j),parivahan)&metatag-description=(Third-party driving licence and vehicle registration address details protected under §8[1][j] — alternative parivahan.gov.in channel available.)}}
	+
	+	====== Driving-licence / vehicle registration records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Third-party DL & vehicle-RC data is §8(1)(j) protected; parivahan.gov.in is the proper channel.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RTO / Transport dept \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Third-party driving licence and vehicle registration address details protected under §8(1)(j) — alternative parivahan.gov.in channel available.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Driving licence holder's address, date of birth, and vehicle-registration owner details are personal information under §8(1)(j). Legitimate-interest access is available through the parivahan.gov.in portal subject to due process; RTI is not the appropriate route.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	driving licence, RTO, Delhi HC, §8(1)(j), parivahan
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-electoral-roll-rti-2016\|Electoral roll copies — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8}}

GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,GSTN,GSTIN,Delhi HC,§8(1)(d),§8(1)(j))&metatag-description=(GSTIN-level transaction and filing data protected under §8[1][d] + §8[1][j]; third-party GST returns not disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Third-party GSTIN transactional and return data is §8(1)(d) + §8(1)(j) protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| GSTN \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	GSTIN-level transaction and filing data protected under §8(1)(d) + §8(1)(j); third-party GST returns not disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	GSTIN-level tax returns, purchase/sale register data, and filing histories are commercially-confidential and personal business information. §8(1)(d) and §8(1)(j) combined protect them from third-party disclosure under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	GSTN, GSTIN, Delhi HC, §8(1)(d), §8(1)(j)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-section-11-timeline-2011\|§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8}}

Inspection charges — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Inspection charges — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,inspection,§2(j),fees,Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(Inspection under §2[j] is free for the first hour; subsequent hours attract the statutory fee.)}}
	+
	+	====== Inspection charges — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//First hour of inspection free; subsequent hours charged per RTI Rules; inspection cannot be refused for non-payment of first-hour fee.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Inspection under §2(j) is free for the first hour; subsequent hours attract the statutory fee.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Per Central RTI Rules, 2012 (and most State rules), inspection of records under §2(j) is free for the first hour. Subsequent hours attract a fee (Rs 5 per 15 min under Central Rules). A PIO cannot refuse inspection citing advance-payment demands for the first hour.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	inspection, §2(j), fees, Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/state-gov-rti-rules-fees-various\|Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-7}}

Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,RTI §24,surveillance,IB,R&AW,§24,§8(1)(a))&metatag-description=(Intelligence/surveillance agency operational records protected via §24 notification + §8[1][a].)}}
	+
	+	====== Mass-surveillance policy transparency — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//IB, R&AW, NTRO operational surveillance records: §24 + §8(1)(a) exempt — not accessible via RTI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Civil-rights organisation \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MHA / Intelligence agencies \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a), §24 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Intelligence/surveillance agency operational records protected via §24 notification + §8(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Intelligence Bureau, R&AW, NTRO and similar notified agencies are §24 exempt organisations. Their operational surveillance practices, target lists, and tradecraft are protected. Only allegations of corruption or human-rights violations qualify for the §24 proviso — and even then via a controlled approval path.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	surveillance, IB, R&AW, §24, §8(1)(a)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-section-24-proviso-2018\|§24 proviso — corruption complaint — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-cbi-exempt-organization\|CBI exemption under §24 — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8 section-24}}

Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,meeting minutes,Delhi HC,§8(1)(i),statutory body)&metatag-description=(Statutory-body meeting minutes disclosable once the decision is taken; §8[1][i] protects only during active deliberation.)}}
	+
	+	====== Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Meeting minutes of statutory bodies disclosable post-decision; §8(1)(i) narrow during deliberation only.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Statutory body \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(i) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Statutory-body meeting minutes disclosable once the decision is taken; §8(1)(i) protects only during active deliberation.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — academic councils, regulatory boards, governing councils — become disclosable once the decision is taken. §8(1)(i) restricts disclosure only during active deliberation and does not convert minutes into permanent secrets.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	meeting minutes, Delhi HC, §8(1)(i), statutory body
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-state-cabinet-2020\|State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §6,RTI §7,multi-topic,Delhi HC,§6,§7)&metatag-description=(A PIO may not refuse a multi-topic RTI; each query must be individually evaluated under §8.)}}
	+
	+	====== Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Multiple topics in one RTI is permitted; PIO must address each individually, not reject the whole.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO may not refuse a multi-topic RTI; each query must be individually evaluated under §8.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Act does not bar an applicant from seeking multiple items of information in one application. A PIO cannot reject the entire application as 'too broad'. Each query must be individually evaluated under §8; separate fee can be levied only where the Rules specify.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	multi-topic, Delhi HC, §6, §7
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-6 section-7}}

Parliamentary committee records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Parliamentary committee records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,parliamentary committee,§8(1)(c),privilege,Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(Parliamentary committee deliberations protected under §8[1][c] — breach of parliamentary privilege.)}}
	+
	+	====== Parliamentary committee records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§8(1)(c) protects parliamentary committee deliberations; breach-of-privilege is a statutory bar to disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Lok Sabha Secretariat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(c) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Parliamentary committee deliberations protected under §8(1)(c) — breach of parliamentary privilege.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Internal deliberations of Parliamentary Committees are protected under §8(1)(c) — 'breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature'. The Committee's final report, once tabled, is a public document; internal drafts and witness records remain protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	parliamentary committee, §8(1)(c), privilege, Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/r-k-jain-vs-uoi\|R.K. Jain v. Union of India]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-cpio-v-subhash-collegium-files-2019\|CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-witness-protection-2021\|Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8}}

Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,transfer orders,Delhi HC,§4(1)(b),postings)&metatag-description=(Posting and transfer orders of public servants, by name and designation, are records of public-authority action — disclosable under §4[1][b].)}}
	+
	+	====== Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Posting / transfer orders by name and designation are §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure material.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Posting authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Posting and transfer orders of public servants, by name and designation, are records of public-authority action — disclosable under §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Posting and transfer orders are official acts of the public authority. Name, designation, previous posting, and effective date are part of the administrative record under §4(1)(b)(iii). Reasons for a specific transfer may be protected under §8(1)(j) in a narrow set of cases.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	transfer orders, Delhi HC, §4(1)(b), postings
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-subordinate-court-judge-transfer-2018\|Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc\|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-4 section-8}}

Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,contractor,Delhi HC,§2(f),§11)&metatag-description=(Records in possession of a public authority pertaining to a private contractor are 'information' under §2[f]; contractor is a third party under §11.)}}
	+
	+	====== Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Contractor records held by a public authority are §2(f) information; disclose subject to §11 notice.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Records in possession of a public authority pertaining to a private contractor are 'information' under §2(f); contractor is a third party under §11.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Records of a private contractor in the possession of a public authority — tender bids, performance reports, payment schedules — are 'information' under §2(f). The contractor is a 'third party' under §11, and §11 notice is required before disclosure.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	contractor, Delhi HC, §2(f), §11
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-tn-municipal-works-2021\|Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC]] (SIC-TN 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-smart-city-project-2021\|Smart-city project details — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-private-school-rti-2019\|Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

RTI cannot seek hypothetical / future information — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI cannot seek hypothetical / future information — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §6,§2(f),hypothetical,future information,recorded information,Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(RTI can seek only recorded information; hypothetical or future-fact questions are outside §2[f].)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI cannot seek hypothetical / future information — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//RTI seeks recorded information; hypothetical questions / future projections are not 'information'.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| PIO \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	RTI can seek only recorded information; hypothetical or future-fact questions are outside §2(f).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The RTI Act, through §2(f), covers recorded information held by the public authority. Questions that seek opinions, hypothetical scenarios, or future-fact projections (e.g., 'what will be the policy next year?') fall outside the definition.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§2(f), hypothetical, future information, recorded information, Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/khanapuram-gandaiah\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-6}}

RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,RBI moratorium,loan recast,§8(1)(d),Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(Loan-recast eligibility criteria and aggregate uptake disclosable; individual borrower data § 8[1][d]/[j] protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Loan-recast criteria + aggregate data disclosable; individual borrower data remains § 8(1)(d)/(j).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Borrower \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Commercial bank \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Loan-recast eligibility criteria and aggregate uptake disclosable; individual borrower data § 8(1)(d)/(j) protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	RBI moratorium / loan-recast policy documents and aggregate uptake data are §4 disclosures. Bank-wise breakdown may be disclosable subject to commercial-confidence balancing under §8(1)(d). Individual borrower data is §8(1)(j) + §8(1)(d) protected.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	RBI moratorium, loan recast, §8(1)(d), Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rti-by-rti-2018\|RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-7 section-8}}

§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §7,§7(9),alternative form,Delhi HC,reasoned departure)&metatag-description=(A departure from the applicant's requested form under §7[9] must be reasoned and limited to disproportionate-effort or record-safety grounds.)}}
	+
	+	====== §7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(9) departures must be reasoned; 'convenience of the PIO' is not a valid ground.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(9) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A departure from the applicant's requested form under §7(9) must be reasoned and limited to disproportionate-effort or record-safety grounds.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§7(9) permits a PIO to provide information in a form different from the one requested only where compliance would 'disproportionately divert the resources' of the public authority or 'be detrimental to the safety or preservation' of the record. Mere convenience is not enough; the departure must be in a written reasoned order.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(9), alternative form, Delhi HC, reasoned departure
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc\|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-pio-transfer-2019\|PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-7}}

RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,RTI §7,meta-RTI,statistics,Delhi HC,§4)&metatag-description=(Statistics of RTIs received / decided, and aggregate application data, are public records.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI about RTI — meta-RTI disclosure ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Meta-RTI statistics (received, decided, rejected, transferred) are public records under §4 / §7.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2, §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Statistics of RTIs received / decided, and aggregate application data, are public records.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Aggregate statistics of RTI applications received, decided, rejected, transferred, and average response time are records of the public authority's own functioning. They are disclosable under §4(1)(b) and §7; individual applicant identity remains protected under §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	meta-RTI, statistics, Delhi HC, §4
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-rbi-moratorium-2021\|RBI moratorium / loan-recast records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-vaccination-records-2022\|Vaccination and Co-WIN data — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-4 section-7}}

NIIF / sovereign-wealth records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(NIIF / sovereign-wealth records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,NIIF,sovereign wealth,§8(1)(a),§8(1)(d))&metatag-description=(NIIF [National Investment & Infrastructure Fund] is a public authority; investee-level commercial terms §8[1][d] protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== NIIF / sovereign-wealth records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//NIIF is §2(h) public authority; fund-level governance disclosable, investee commercial terms are §8(1)(d).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Researcher / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| NIIF / Ministry of Finance \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a), §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	NIIF (National Investment & Infrastructure Fund) is a public authority; investee-level commercial terms §8(1)(d) protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The National Investment & Infrastructure Fund is a public authority under §2(h) (government-anchored). Fund-level governance, mandate, board composition, aggregate investment category are disclosable. Investee-level commercial terms and portfolio company performance data fall under §8(1)(d) and economic-interest carve-out of §8(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	NIIF, sovereign wealth, §8(1)(a), §8(1)(d)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-maharashtra-corporator-records-2019\|Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC]] (SIC-MH 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

National sports federations — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(National sports federations — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,sports federations,Delhi HC,§2(h),athletes)&metatag-description=(National sports federations substantially financed by the State are public authorities under §2[h].)}}
	+
	+	====== National sports federations — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//BCCI-style sports federations with substantial State benefits fall within §2(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Athlete / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| National sports federation \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	National sports federations substantially financed by the State are public authorities under §2(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	National sports federations that receive substantial State benefits — SAI grants, concessional land, tax exemptions, athlete stipends — are 'public authorities' under §2(h) per the Thalappalam test applied to sports contexts. Athletes have a right of access to selection, discipline, and grant-utilisation records.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	sports federations, Delhi HC, §2(h), athletes
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-political-parties-2013\|Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2}}

Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,income tax,tax returns,§8(1)(j),Delhi HC,confidentiality)&metatag-description=(A person's income-tax returns are confidential personal information; third-party RTI access barred under §8[1][j].)}}
	+
	+	====== Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//ITRs are §8(1)(j) personal info; third-party access requires clear public-interest showing + §8(2) balancing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Income Tax Department \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A person's income-tax returns are confidential personal information; third-party RTI access barred under §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Income-tax returns filed with the IT Department are personal financial information under §8(1)(j). A third-party request for another's ITR is barred unless the applicant demonstrates a larger public interest under §8(2). Post-DPDP 2025, the framework is reinforced.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	income tax, tax returns, §8(1)(j), Delhi HC, confidentiality
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8}}

Board-examination records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Board-examination records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,board exams,CBSE,Delhi HC,Aditya Bandopadhyay)&metatag-description=(Post-Aditya Bandopadhyay, board-exam evaluated answer scripts are disclosable on payment of copy fees.)}}
	+
	+	====== Board-examination records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Board-exam answer scripts disclosable per //Aditya Bandopadhyay// (SC 2011); PIO cannot delay on administrative grounds.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Student / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CBSE / ICSE / State Board \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Post-Aditya Bandopadhyay, board-exam evaluated answer scripts are disclosable on payment of copy fees.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following //Aditya Bandopadhyay//, class 10 and 12 board-exam answer scripts are disclosable under RTI on payment of reasonable copy fees. PIOs cannot delay on grounds of 'administrative load' or 'internal process'; §7(1) 30-day timeline strictly applies.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	board exams, CBSE, Delhi HC, Aditya Bandopadhyay
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cbse-v-paresh-ghadge-cic\|Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-answer-keys-2020\|Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

University appointment records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(University appointment records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,university,VC appointment,Delhi HC,§8(1)(e))&metatag-description=(Selection committee minutes for university faculty / VC appointments disclosable post-decision; §8[1][e] narrow.)}}
	+
	+	====== University appointment records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//University faculty/VC appointment records disclosable post-decision; pre-decision minutes §8(1)(e) narrow.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Central University \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Selection committee minutes for university faculty / VC appointments disclosable post-decision; §8(1)(e) narrow.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Central and State Universities are public authorities. Selection committee minutes for faculty and VC appointments, the final recommendation, the successful candidate's profile, and the rank list are disclosable post-decision. Pre-decision deliberations are narrowly protected under §8(1)(e).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	university, VC appointment, Delhi HC, §8(1)(e)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-minutes-2019\|Meeting minutes of statutory bodies — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-state-cabinet-2020\|State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cabinet-note-after-decision-2022\|Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/blog/delhi-hc-phd-theses-rti-ruling-2024\|PhD Theses Public under RTI — Delhi HC (2024)]] (HC-DEL 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,vigilance,Delhi HC,§8(1)(h),disciplinary,investigation)&metatag-description=(Active vigilance investigation against a named officer protected under §8[1][h] until proceedings conclude.)}}
	+
	+	====== Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2015-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Active vigilance records protected under §8(1)(h); post-proceedings, closure reports disclosable to concerned officer.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2015-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Public servant / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Vigilance dept \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Active vigilance investigation against a named officer protected under §8(1)(h) until proceedings conclude.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information relating to active departmental vigilance or disciplinary inquiries is protected under §8(1)(h) until the proceedings conclude. Once concluded, the closure report and outcome are disclosable to the officer concerned; third-party access remains subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	vigilance, Delhi HC, §8(1)(h), disciplinary, investigation
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cvc-vigilance-circulars-2020\|CVC / vigilance circulars — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-question-paper-leak-investigations-2021\|Question-paper-leak investigation records]] (SC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8}}

Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §8,whistleblower,§8(1)(g),Delhi HC,WPA 2014)&metatag-description=(Whistleblower identity protected under §8[1][g] + Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014.)}}
	+
	+	====== Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Whistleblower identity absolutely protected under §8(1)(g) + Whistleblowers Protection Act 2014.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Subject-of-complaint / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CVC / Disciplinary authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Whistleblower identity protected under §8(1)(g) + Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The identity of a whistleblower who has invoked the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 is absolutely protected. The subject of the complaint cannot obtain the complainant's identity via RTI. §8(1)(g) — endangerment of life/safety — is reinforced by the statutory scheme.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	whistleblower, §8(1)(g), Delhi HC, WPA 2014
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-whistleblower-protection-2014\|RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-witness-protection-2021\|Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-8}}

Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC,High Court of Karnataka RTI,RTI §2,cooperatives,Karnataka HC,§2(h),Thalappalam)&metatag-description=(Following Thalappalam, routine cooperative societies not public authorities merely by virtue of registration.)}}
	+
	+	====== Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Karnataka · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Post-Thalappalam, cooperatives are public authorities only if directly financed or controlled by the State.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Karnataka \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Karnataka cooperative society \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Following Thalappalam, routine cooperative societies not public authorities merely by virtue of registration.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Karnataka High Court applied Thalappalam (2013) — cooperative societies are not public authorities merely by virtue of being registered under state law. State control or substantial financing must be shown.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	cooperatives, Karnataka HC, §2(h), Thalappalam
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-2-h-ngo-receipt-2014\|§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-sports-body-2018\|National sports federations — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-KAR\|All High Court of Karnataka rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-kar section-2}}

Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC,High Court of Karnataka RTI,RTI §8,tenders,Karnataka HC,§8(1)(d),commercial confidence)&metatag-description=(Post-award tender records disclosable; pre-award bid commercials protected under §8[1][d].)}}
	+
	+	====== Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Karnataka · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Pre-award tender commercials are §8(1)(d) confidential; post-award evaluation records become disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Karnataka \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Unsuccessful bidder \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Post-award tender records disclosable; pre-award bid commercials protected under §8(1)(d).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Pre-award bid commercials, which if disclosed would give competitors an unfair advantage, are protected under §8(1)(d). Once the tender is awarded and the contract concluded, evaluation records become disclosable subject to routine commercial-confidence carve-outs for technology and cost-sheet details.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	tenders, Karnataka HC, §8(1)(d), commercial confidence
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-ap-rti-land-acquisition-2022\|Land-acquisition records — Andhra Pradesh SIC]] (SIC-AP 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-university-appointments-2020\|University appointment records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-tn-municipal-works-2021\|Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC]] (SIC-TN 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-KAR\|All High Court of Karnataka rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-kar section-8}}

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. CIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. CIC,High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,KVS,Kendriya Vidyalaya,admissions,§2(h),Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(KVS is a public authority under §2[h]; admission-merit lists disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. CIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//KVS is §2(h) public authority; admission-merit and waiting-list records disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CIC & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	KVS is a public authority under §2(h); admission-merit lists disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, established by the Ministry of Education, is a 'public authority' under §2(h). Admission-merit lists, waiting lists and sibling-reservation applicability records are disclosable to affected applicants.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	KVS, Kendriya Vidyalaya, admissions, §2(h), Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-admissions-2020\|IIT / NIT admission data — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-medical-college-seat-2019\|Medical college admissions — SC]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/punjab-haryana-hc-scholarship-records-2019\|Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC]] (HC-PB 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC,High Court of Kerala RTI,RTI §2,cooperative banks,Kerala HC,§2(h),Thalappalam)&metatag-description=(Cooperative banks not automatically public authorities post-Thalappalam; substantial financing must be shown case-by-case.)}}
	+
	+	====== Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Kerala · 2017-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Post-Thalappalam, cooperative banks are public authorities only if substantial State financing is proven.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Kerala \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Cooperative bank \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Cooperative banks not automatically public authorities post-Thalappalam; substantial financing must be shown case-by-case.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Following Thalappalam (SC 2013), cooperative banks — even those under State cooperative societies acts — are not automatically 'public authorities'. A factual determination of substantial State financing or control is required in each case.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	cooperative banks, Kerala HC, §2(h), Thalappalam
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-KER\|All High Court of Kerala rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-ker section-2}}

Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015,High Court of Kerala RTI,RTI §2,political parties,Kerala HC,§2(h),state units)&metatag-description=(HC held State units of political parties not 'public authorities' — contrast with CIC 2013 Full Bench.)}}
	+
	+	====== Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015 ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Kerala · 2015-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//State units of political parties held NOT public authorities under §2(h) — contrast with CIC ruling.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Kerala \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2015-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Political party state unit \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	HC held State units of political parties not 'public authorities' — contrast with CIC 2013 Full Bench.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Kerala High Court held that State units of political parties are not 'public authorities' under §2(h). This contrasts with the CIC's Full Bench ruling of 2013 which held six national political parties to be public authorities. The conflict remains unresolved at the SC.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	political parties, Kerala HC, §2(h), state units
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-political-parties-2013\|Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-political-parties-2013\|Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-judicial-academies-2020\|Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-KER\|All High Court of Kerala rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-ker section-2}}

Pension records — Kerala HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Pension records — Kerala HC,High Court of Kerala RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,pension,retirement,Kerala HC,service records)&metatag-description=(A pensioner is entitled to his own pension calculation, retirement benefits, and arrears records under RTI.)}}
	+
	+	====== Pension records — Kerala HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Kerala · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//A pensioner's own records (pension calc, arrears, retirement benefits) are disclosable to him under RTI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Kerala \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Pensioner / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Department of Accounts \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A pensioner is entitled to his own pension calculation, retirement benefits, and arrears records under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A pensioner's own service record — pension calculation, DCRG, leave encashment, arrears — is disclosable to him under the RTI Act. §8(1)(j) cannot be invoked against the data subject himself.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	pension, retirement, Kerala HC, service records
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pension-commutation-2020\|Pension commutation records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-judicial-salary-2019\|Judges' salary / allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-epfo-records-2021\|EPFO account records — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-KER\|All High Court of Kerala rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-ker section-7 section-8}}

§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §20,§20,penalty,mala fide,Madras HC,due diligence)&metatag-description=(§20 penalty requires specific demonstration of mala fide or negligence; blanket penalties on technical delays set aside.)}}
	+
	+	====== §20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§20 penalty requires specific mala-fide or persistent-negligence finding; formal 30-day delay alone is insufficient.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| PIO \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Information Commission \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §20(1) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§20 penalty requires specific demonstration of mala fide or negligence; blanket penalties on technical delays set aside.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A §20(1) penalty cannot be imposed merely because information was provided beyond the 30-day window. The Commission must record a specific finding of mala fide conduct or persistent negligence. Due diligence by the PIO, properly documented, is a defence.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§20, penalty, mala fide, Madras HC, due diligence
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-contempt-of-commission-2020\|Defying Commission order — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022\|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-20}}

Defying Commission order — Madras HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Defying Commission order — Madras HC,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,RTI §20,contempt,Madras HC,Commission defiance,§20)&metatag-description=(Willful defiance of a Commission's direction is actionable via contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 through the High Court.)}}
	+
	+	====== Defying Commission order — Madras HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Willful defiance of Commission direction is contempt — actionable via Art.215 HC jurisdiction.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Defaulting PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Willful defiance of a Commission's direction is actionable via contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 through the High Court.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Information Commissions' directions are binding. Willful and knowing defiance by a PIO / public authority amounts to contempt and may be pursued through the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution, in addition to §20 penalty.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	contempt, Madras HC, Commission defiance, §20
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018\|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020\|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-pio-penalty-2020\|§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-18 section-19 section-20}}

Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,right to be heard,Madras HC,FAA,§19,natural justice)&metatag-description=(An applicant has the right to be heard at FAA and Information Commission before an adverse order.)}}
	+
	+	====== Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / IC — adverse orders passed ex parte are liable to be set aside.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| FAA / SIC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	An applicant has the right to be heard at FAA and Information Commission before an adverse order.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Proceedings before the FAA and the Information Commission affecting the applicant's rights to information require notice and opportunity to be heard. An adverse order passed without hearing the applicant is liable to be set aside on writ review.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	right to be heard, Madras HC, FAA, §19, natural justice
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020\|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-r-jayachandran-2017-sc\|Union of India v. R. Jayachandran]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/muniyappan-third-party-cic\|Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-18 section-19}}

§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC,High Court of Madras RTI,RTI §6,§6(2),motive,Madras HC,vexatious applications)&metatag-description=(A PIO cannot reject an RTI application on the ground that the applicant has a 'personal motive' or 'harassment intent'.)}}
	+
	+	====== §6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Madras · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§6(2) bars inquiry into motive; PIO cannot reject citing applicant's alleged vexatious or malafide intent.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Madras \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §6(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A PIO cannot reject an RTI application on the ground that the applicant has a 'personal motive' or 'harassment intent'.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§6(2) expressly bars a PIO from requiring the applicant to state any reason for seeking information. A PIO cannot reject on the ground of perceived 'malafide', 'harassment intent', or 'vexatious' purpose. §8 is the exclusive ground for refusal.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§6(2), motive, Madras HC, vexatious applications
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-abuse-threshold-2019\|Repeat and frivolous RTI threshold — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-multiple-applications-2021\|Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/arvind-kejriwal-vs-cpio\|Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-MAD\|All High Court of Madras rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-mad section-6}}

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §4,§4,proactive disclosure,suo motu,MKSS)&metatag-description=(Section 4 is a continuing obligation; Rajasthan and other States directed to improve proactive disclosure.)}}
	+
	+	====== Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2018-07-23 · (2018) 17 SCC 324 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-4-disclosure-continuity-2019\|§4 disclosure continuity — SC directive line]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-maharashtra-corporator-records-2019\|Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC]] (SIC-MH 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/allahabad-hc-rti-land-records-2017\|Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC]] (HC-UP 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196070064/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-4 landmark}}

Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RTI §11,§11,third party,procedural requirement,Muniyappan)&metatag-description=(§11 notice is mandatory where the third party has treated the information as confidential; omission vitiates the final order.)}}
	+
	+	====== Muniyappan standard — §11 third-party notice ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2010-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§11 third-party notice omission vitiates the PIO's final order.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2010-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§11 notice is mandatory where the third party has treated the information as confidential; omission vitiates the final order.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where information sought was supplied by a third party in confidence, §11 procedure (notice + 10-day opportunity) is mandatory. Its omission is procedurally fatal and the final order is liable to be set aside.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§11, third party, procedural requirement, Muniyappan
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-section-11-timeline-2011\|§11 40-day total timeline — CIC directive]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-gstn-data-2020\|GSTN / GSTIN data — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=11\|All RTI cases turning on §11]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8 section-11 landmark}}

PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,PMNRF,relief fund,§2(h),CIC)&metatag-description=(The Prime Minister's National Relief Fund is a 'public authority' under §2[h]; donation and disbursal records covered.)}}
	+
	+	====== PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2015-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PMNRF is a public authority under §2(h); its donor, disbursal and trustee records are disclosable under RTI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2015-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PMO / PMNRF \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	The Prime Minister's National Relief Fund is a 'public authority' under §2(h); donation and disbursal records covered.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, by virtue of its constitution, trustees and operational integration with the PMO, is a 'public authority' under §2(h). Its records of donations and disbursals are disclosable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PMNRF, relief fund, §2(h), CIC
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-sovereign-wealth-fund-2022\|NIIF / sovereign-wealth records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/punjab-haryana-hc-scholarship-records-2019\|Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC]] (HC-PB 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-pio-designation-2016\|PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-minister-foreign-travel-2013\|Minister's foreign-travel records — CIC]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 landmark}}

Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC,High Court of Punjab & Haryana RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,scholarship,Punjab HC,§4(1)(b)(xii),subsidy)&metatag-description=(Scholarship beneficiary lists and fund disbursal records fall under §4[1][b][xii].)}}
	+
	+	====== Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Punjab & Haryana · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Scholarship beneficiary lists + disbursal schedules are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy records — disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Punjab & Haryana \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Student / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Scholarship dept \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b)(xii) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Scholarship beneficiary lists and fund disbursal records fall under §4(1)(b)(xii).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Scholarship and fellowship schemes (SC/ST/OBC, minority, merit-based) are subsidy programmes within §4(1)(b)(xii). The beneficiary list, amount released, and dates of disbursal must be published proactively.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	scholarship, Punjab HC, §4(1)(b)(xii), subsidy
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-punjab-rti-scholarship-delay-2022\|Scholarship disbursal delays — Punjab SIC]] (SIC-PB 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-kerala-ration-card-records-2020\|Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC]] (SIC-KL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-budget-mid-day-meal-2018\|Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-wb-ration-irregularity-2022\|Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC]] (SIC-WB 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-PB\|All High Court of Punjab & Haryana rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-pb section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §2,RTI §7,inspection,§2(j),CIC,records)&metatag-description=(Inspection under §2[j] is a statutory right; PIO must facilitate with advance notice.)}}
	+
	+	====== Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2013-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Inspection under §2(j) is a right, not a favour; PIO must schedule access reasonably.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Inspection under §2(j) is a statutory right; PIO must facilitate with advance notice.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§2(j) expressly lists 'inspection of works, documents, records' as a facet of the right to information. PIO must facilitate inspection on reasonable notice; cannot refuse inspection and substitute with photocopy only.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	inspection, §2(j), CIC, records
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/reserve-bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry-cic\|Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)]] (CIC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-2 section-7}}

Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC,High Court of Rajasthan RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,panchayat,Rajasthan HC,§4(1)(b),local body accounts)&metatag-description=(Panchayat income and expenditure accounts are §4 proactive-disclosure material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Rajasthan · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Gram Panchayat accounts are public-money records; §4(1)(b) requires proactive disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Rajasthan \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Village resident / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Gram Panchayat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Panchayat income and expenditure accounts are §4 proactive-disclosure material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Gram Panchayat income-expenditure accounts, development-scheme utilisation, and works register are records of public monies entrusted to local bodies. §4(1)(b) mandates their proactive disclosure, including display at the Panchayat office.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	panchayat, Rajasthan HC, §4(1)(b), local body accounts
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-maharashtra-corporator-records-2019\|Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC]] (SIC-MH 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/mazdoor-kisan-shakti-sangathan-v-uoi-2018-sc\|Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-judicial-academies-2020\|Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-tn-municipal-works-2021\|Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC]] (SIC-TN 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-RAJ\|All High Court of Rajasthan rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-raj section-4 section-7}}

Rajeev Mankotia v. CIC (file notings)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Rajeev Mankotia v. CIC (file notings),High Court of Delhi RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,file notings,§2(f),§8(1)(i),Delhi HC)&metatag-description=(File notings are 'information' under §2[f]; §8[1][i] cabinet-papers exemption does not convert to permanent secrecy.)}}
	+
	+	====== Rajeev Mankotia v. CIC (file notings) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi · 2012-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//File notings are disclosable; mere internal communication is not cabinet material under §8(1)(i).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Rajeev Mankotia \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CIC & Anr. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(f), §8(1)(i) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	File notings are 'information' under §2(f); §8(1)(i) cabinet-papers exemption does not convert to permanent secrecy.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The term 'information' under §2(f) includes file notings. The cabinet-papers exemption in §8(1)(i) applies narrowly to deliberations of the Council of Ministers and not to every internal note of a department.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	file notings, §2(f), §8(1)(i), Delhi HC
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/r-k-jain-vs-uoi\|R.K. Jain v. Union of India]] (SC 2013)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/r-k-jain-vs-uoi\|R.K. Jain v. Union of India]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-cabinet-note-after-decision-2022\|Cabinet note post-decision — §8(1)(i) — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-state-cabinet-2020\|State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/icai-vs-shaunak-h-satya\|ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya]] (SC 2011)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8}}

Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC),Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §8,RBI,CIC,inspection reports,§8(1)(e),fiduciary)&metatag-description=(RBI directed to disclose inspection reports of banks — foundation for the later SC ruling in Jayantilal Mistry.)}}
	+
	+	====== Reserve Bank of India — PIO's information denial (CIC) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2011-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CIC foundation-ruling: RBI inspection reports disclosable; fiduciary claim rejected (later affirmed by SC 2015).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Central Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2011-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various RTI applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RBI \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	RBI directed to disclose inspection reports of banks — foundation for the later SC ruling in Jayantilal Mistry.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Inspection reports and regulatory findings by RBI concerning commercial banks are held in a regulatory capacity, not a fiduciary one. §8(1)(e) cannot be invoked to refuse them. Later affirmed by the Supreme Court in RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2015).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	RBI, CIC, inspection reports, §8(1)(e), fiduciary
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-sebi-disclosure-2018\|SEBI inspection records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-8}}

CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions,Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) RTI,RTI §8,collegium,judicial appointments,§8(1)(j),CJI office)&metatag-description=(Collegium resolutions announced are public; internal files protected under §8[1][j] subject to public-interest balancing.)}}
	+
	+	====== CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 2019-11-13 · (2020) 5 SCC 481 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Collegium's final resolutions disclosable; internal deliberative records subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-11-13 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2020) 5 SCC 481 \|
	+	^ Bench \| Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana, D.Y. Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, Sanjiv Khanna \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| CPIO Supreme Court \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Collegium resolutions announced are public; internal files protected under §8(1)(j) subject to public-interest balancing.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	As a limb of the 2019 Constitution-Bench ruling, the Court held that the collegium's final resolutions (recommendations, transfer orders) are disclosable. Internal files and the reasoning of individual judges remain personal information under §8(1)(j) subject to the public-interest test.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	collegium, judicial appointments, §8(1)(j), CJI office
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/secretary-general-supreme-court-v-subhash-chandra-agarwal-2009-del-hc\|Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (HC-DEL 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/khanapuram-gandaiah\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-medical-records-of-deceased-2018\|Medical records of deceased relative — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8 landmark}}

Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal,Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities RTI,RTI §19,§19(3),condonation of delay,limitation,Second Appeal)&metatag-description=(Delay in filing §19[3] Second Appeal may be condoned for sufficient cause; Commission has equitable discretion.)}}
	+
	+	====== Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§19(3) 90-day limit is condonable for sufficient cause; Commission exercises equitable discretion.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Delay in filing §19(3) Second Appeal may be condoned for sufficient cause; Commission has equitable discretion.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	While §19(3) prescribes a 90-day limitation for Second Appeal, the Commission has equitable discretion to condone delay for sufficient cause. Common grounds: illness, change of address, loss of PIO's original order.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§19(3), condonation of delay, limitation, Second Appeal
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014\|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-union-board-examinations-2019\|Board-examination records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-fee-waiver\|RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India / CIC authorities rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-19}}

Natural justice in Information Commission hearings

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Natural justice in Information Commission hearings,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,natural justice,Commission,quasi-judicial,fair hearing)&metatag-description=(Both parties — applicant and PIO — entitled to fair hearing at the Commission before adverse directions.)}}
	+
	+	====== Natural justice in Information Commission hearings ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//IC hearings are quasi-judicial; both parties must receive fair notice and opportunity to be heard.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various appellants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CIC / SIC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §18, §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Both parties — applicant and PIO — entitled to fair hearing at the Commission before adverse directions.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Proceedings before the Information Commission are quasi-judicial. Both the applicant and the public authority must be given fair notice, access to the record, and opportunity to be heard before the Commission passes any direction adversely affecting either party.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	natural justice, Commission, quasi-judicial, fair hearing
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/namit-sharma-vs-uoi\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/uoi-v-namit-sharma-review-2013-sc\|Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review)]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/khanapuram-gandaiah\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18\|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-18 section-19}}

Question-paper-leak investigation records

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Question-paper-leak investigation records,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,question paper leak,investigation,§8(1)(h),recruitment)&metatag-description=(Closure reports of question-paper-leak investigations disclosable after inquiry concludes and recruitment finalised.)}}
	+
	+	====== Question-paper-leak investigation records ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§8(1)(h) protects active leak investigations; post-conclusion closure reports disclosable to affected candidates.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Affected candidate \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Examining body \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Closure reports of question-paper-leak investigations disclosable after inquiry concludes and recruitment finalised.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	During an active question-paper-leak investigation, records are protected under §8(1)(h). Once the inquiry concludes and the recruitment is either re-conducted or decided, the closure report and findings are disclosable to affected candidates.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	question paper leak, investigation, §8(1)(h), recruitment
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/icai-vs-shaunak-h-satya\|ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8}}

Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,electoral rolls,machine readable,privacy,aggregation)&metatag-description=(Electoral rolls disclosable in book form; machine-readable format denied on privacy-scale grounds.)}}
	+
	+	====== Machine-readable electoral rolls — SC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2023-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Electoral rolls: book/PDF disclosure OK; machine-readable bulk format restricted due to aggregation risk.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2023-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant / civic-tech organisation \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Election Commission \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Electoral rolls disclosable in book form; machine-readable format denied on privacy-scale grounds.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Electoral rolls are public records and disclosable in the polling-booth-wise book form / PDF. Bulk machine-readable formats (CSV / database dumps) are restricted due to the aggregation/profiling risks — a proportionality concern rooted in Puttaswamy.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	electoral rolls, machine readable, privacy, aggregation
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-electoral-roll-rti-2016\|Electoral roll copies — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-electoral-funding-2023\|Post-ADR Electoral Bonds — RTI sequel]] (CIC 2024)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-4 section-8}}

Information Officer recruitment data — SC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Information Officer recruitment data — SC,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §4,RTI §8,recruitment,SC,§4,public service)&metatag-description=(Public recruitment — post-wise vacancy, selection rounds, final list — must be disclosed proactively under §4.)}}
	+
	+	====== Information Officer recruitment data — SC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Public recruitment data: vacancies, selection stages, final list must be proactively published.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Recruiting body \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Public recruitment — post-wise vacancy, selection rounds, final list — must be disclosed proactively under §4.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Public-sector recruitment — UPSC, SSC, State PSC, PSU — carries a strong public-interest disclosure expectation. Vacancy position, written/interview stages, category-wise final list and waiting list are §4(1)(b) material. Individual candidate scores fall under §8(1)(g)-adjacent privacy considerations.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	recruitment, SC, §4, public service
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-answer-keys-2020\|Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-appointment-committees-2016\|Search-cum-Selection committee records — CIC]] (CIC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-contribution-annual-reports-2022\|FCRA annual reports aggregate disclosure — CIC]] (CIC 2022)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-4 section-8}}

RTI Act 2019 Amendment — Commissioner terms

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI Act 2019 Amendment — Commissioner terms,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §13,RTI §14,RTI §16,RTI §27,2019 Amendment,Commissioner tenure,§13,§14,independence)&metatag-description=(Parliament amended §13, §14, §16, §27 — Commissioner tenure and salary now determined by Central Government rules.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI Act 2019 Amendment — Commissioner terms ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2019-08-01 · Act 24 of 2019 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//2019 Amendment: Commissioner tenure (previously 5 years) now determined by Central Rules; critics argue it reduces independence.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-08-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Act 24 of 2019 \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Union of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §13, §14, §16, §27 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Guidance / other \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Parliament amended §13, §14, §16, §27 — Commissioner tenure and salary now determined by Central Government rules.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 changed the fixed 5-year tenure of Information Commissioners to whatever the Central Government prescribes by rules. Salary and service conditions similarly shifted to executive rules. This was passed over concerns about Commissioner independence.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	2019 Amendment, Commissioner tenure, §13, §14, independence
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/state-gov-rti-rules-fees-various\|Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/namit-sharma-vs-uoi\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-private-school-rti-2019\|Aided private schools under RTI — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=13\|All RTI cases turning on §13]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=14\|All RTI cases turning on §14]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=16\|All RTI cases turning on §16]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=27\|All RTI cases turning on §27]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-13 section-14 section-16 section-27 landmark}}

Medical college admissions — SC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Medical college admissions — SC,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,RTI §4,MCI,NMC,medical admissions,§2(h),NEET)&metatag-description=(MCI/NMC is a public authority; medical-college seat matrix, fee structure and NEET counselling data disclosable.)}}
	+
	+	====== Medical college admissions — SC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//MCI/NMC = §2(h) public authority; seat matrix, fees, counselling mechanics all disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Candidate / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| MCI / NMC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	MCI/NMC is a public authority; medical-college seat matrix, fee structure and NEET counselling data disclosable.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Medical Council of India (now replaced by National Medical Commission) is a statutory body and public authority under §2(h). Aggregate admission data — seat matrix by institution, NEET counselling rounds, fee structure, recognition status — is §4 material.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	MCI, NMC, medical admissions, §2(h), NEET
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-iit-admissions-2020\|IIT / NIT admission data — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-medical-records-of-deceased-2018\|Medical records of deceased relative — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-gst-council-public-authority-2019\|GST Council — public authority status (CIC)]] (CIC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-2 section-4}}

§22 vs. Official Secrets Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§22 vs. Official Secrets Act,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §22,RTI §8,§22,Official Secrets Act,§8(1)(a),national security)&metatag-description=(§22 RTI Act overrides Official Secrets Act, 1923 to the extent of inconsistency — §8[1][a] continues to protect genuine national-security material.)}}
	+
	+	====== §22 vs. Official Secrets Act ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§22 overrides OSA 1923 to extent of inconsistency; §8(1)(a) security carve-out continues independently.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicants \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Government \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(a) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§22 RTI Act overrides Official Secrets Act, 1923 to the extent of inconsistency — §8(1)(a) continues to protect genuine national-security material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The overriding effect of §22 extends over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to the extent the latter is inconsistent with the RTI Act. Genuine national-security, strategic and scientific interest material continues to be protected under §8(1)(a) of the RTI Act — which is the appropriate route, not the OSA blanket.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§22, Official Secrets Act, §8(1)(a), national security
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-22-overriding-effect-2012\|§22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-22-mental-health-act-harmony-2020\|RTI § 22 harmony with special laws]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/state-gov-rti-rules-fees-various\|Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs]] (HC-DEL 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-whistleblower-complaint-2019\|Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sp-gupta-v-uoi-1981-sc\|S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer)]] (SC 1981)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=22\|All RTI cases turning on §22]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-22 section-8 landmark}}

Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,pending cases,Supreme Court,§8(1)(b),certified copies)&metatag-description=(Internal files of pending SC/HC cases protected; parties must use certified copies under CPC/SC rules, not RTI.)}}
	+
	+	====== Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Pending case records: use certified-copies procedure (CPC/SC Rules), not RTI. §8(1)(b) applies.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Supreme Court Registry \|
	+	^ Respondent \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(b), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Internal files of pending SC/HC cases protected; parties must use certified copies under CPC/SC rules, not RTI.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Records of pending cases before the Supreme Court and High Courts — notes, drafts, internal correspondence — are protected under §8(1)(b) (court-forbidden disclosure) and §8(1)(e). Parties must use the certified-copies procedure under the Supreme Court Rules / CPC, not RTI, for access.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	pending cases, Supreme Court, §8(1)(b), certified copies
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Gujarat HC pleadings — third-party RTI not maintainable]] (HC-GUJ 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018\|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-departmental-proceedings-rti-2019\|Departmental proceedings records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-punjab-rti-scholarship-delay-2022\|Scholarship disbursal delays — Punjab SIC]] (SIC-PB 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-political-parties-2013\|Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8}}

Public servant's own service record — SC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Public servant's own service record — SC,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,own service record,§8(1)(j),data subject)&metatag-description=(A public servant is entitled to his own service record under RTI; §8[1][j] does not apply to the data subject himself.)}}
	+
	+	====== Public servant's own service record — SC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2015-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Own service record is accessible to the concerned public servant; §8(1)(j) does not protect against the data subject.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2015-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Public servant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Departmental authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A public servant is entitled to his own service record under RTI; §8(1)(j) does not apply to the data subject himself.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The §8(1)(j) exemption protects personal information from THIRD-PARTY access. A public servant's own APAR, leave records, transfer files, and disciplinary proceedings remain accessible to him personally; the exemption cannot be turned against the data subject.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	own service record, §8(1)(j), data subject
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-pension-commutation-2020\|Pension commutation records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017\|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-caste-validity-certificate-2020\|Caste-validity certificate records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8 landmark}}

§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §7,§7(3),fee intimation,SC,30-day clock)&metatag-description=(§7[3] fee intimation stops the 30-day clock; PIO must issue written intimation with right-to-review before charging.)}}
	+
	+	====== §7(3) fee-intimation procedure — SC clarity ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§7(3) additional-fee intimation must be WRITTEN and cite right-to-review; stops 30-day clock.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7(3) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§7(3) fee intimation stops the 30-day clock; PIO must issue written intimation with right-to-review before charging.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§7(3) requires the PIO to provide written intimation of additional fee payable before providing information beyond the application fee. The intimation must include: (a) the calculation details, (b) the applicant's right to seek review of the calculation, (c) that the 30-day clock stops until fee is paid. Oral/phone intimation does not satisfy §7(3).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§7(3), fee intimation, SC, 30-day clock
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/calcutta-hc-rti-fee-waiver\|RTI fee for BPL applicants — Calcutta HC]] (HC-CAL 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-multiple-applications-2021\|Multiple-topic RTI applications — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-7 landmark}}

Waqf Board under RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Waqf Board under RTI,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,Waqf Board,§2(h),public authority)&metatag-description=(State Waqf Boards, constituted under the Waqf Act 1995, are public authorities under §2[h].)}}
	+
	+	====== Waqf Board under RTI ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//State Waqf Boards (Waqf Act 1995) are §2(h) public authorities; property, grievance, and fund records disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Waqf Board \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	State Waqf Boards, constituted under the Waqf Act 1995, are public authorities under §2(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	State Waqf Boards are constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995 with State control over appointments and funds. They are 'public authorities' under §2(h). Waqf property registers, grievance records, and audited accounts are disclosable under RTI.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Waqf Board, §2(h), public authority
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-judicial-academies-2020\|Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-political-parties-2015\|Political party accounts — Kerala HC 2015]] (HC-KER 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-2019-cooperative\|Cooperative societies — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-medical-council-2018\|RTI coverage of Medical Council — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-2}}

RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g),Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,whistleblower,§8(1)(g),source protection)&metatag-description=(Identity of whistleblower / source protected under §8[1][g] where disclosure would endanger them.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Whistleblower identity protected under §8(1)(g); 'source of information' carve-out is intentional.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Whistleblower / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Public authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(g) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Identity of whistleblower / source protected under §8(1)(g) where disclosure would endanger them.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(g) expressly protects the 'identity of a source of information or assistance' where disclosure would endanger life or safety. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 reinforces this — sources of corruption complaints are entitled to anonymity protection.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	whistleblower, §8(1)(g), source protection
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-whistleblower-complaint-2019\|Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-witness-protection-2021\|Witness identity protection — §8(1)(g) — CIC]] (CIC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/suo-motu-disclosure-rejection-of-rti-cic\|Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-court-ordered-non-disclosure-2018\|Court-directed non-disclosure — §8(1)(b) — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/bihar-psc-v-state-of-bihar-2012-sc\|Bihar PSC — interview marks disclosability]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8}}

§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §2,NGO,§2(h),substantial financing,Thalappalam applied)&metatag-description=(NGO receiving substantial government grant is a 'public authority' under §2[h]; trivial / one-time grants do not trigger coverage.)}}
	+
	+	====== §2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//NGO with substantial continuing State grants: §2(h). One-time or trivial grants: NO §2(h) coverage.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2014-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Grant-receiving NGO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	NGO receiving substantial government grant is a 'public authority' under §2(h); trivial / one-time grants do not trigger coverage.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Applying Thalappalam, an NGO that receives substantial and continuing State financing — measured against its total operating budget and the character of the funding — falls within §2(h). Trivial, one-time or project-specific grants do not bring an otherwise-private NGO into the definition.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	NGO, §2(h), substantial financing, Thalappalam applied
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-charitable-trust-public-authority-2017\|Charitable trusts receiving State grants — CIC]] (CIC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-cooperative-banks-rti-2017\|Cooperative banks under RTI — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-2}}

§3 — right available to 'citizens', not 'persons'

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§3 — right available to 'citizens' not 'persons',Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §3,RTI §6,§3,citizens,standing,companies,foreign nationals)&metatag-description=(§3 limits the right to 'citizens'; companies, associations, and foreign nationals lack direct standing.)}}
	+
	+	====== §3 — right available to 'citizens', not 'persons' ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§3 'right to information' is to citizens only; companies / non-citizens lack direct §3 standing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Foreign national / Non-citizen applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| PIO \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §3, §6 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§3 limits the right to 'citizens'; companies, associations, and foreign nationals lack direct standing.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§3 confers the right to information on 'citizens' — interpreted to exclude companies, foreign nationals, and associations as such. An application by a natural-person citizen (including on behalf of an organisation) is the correct route.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§3, citizens, standing, companies, foreign nationals
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-foreign-confidential-2019\|Foreign-government confidential communications — §8(1)(f) — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/state-of-up-v-raj-narain-1975-sc\|State of U.P. v. Raj Narain]] (SC 1975)
	+	* [[/cases/sp-gupta-v-uoi-1981-sc\|S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer)]] (SC 1981)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=3\|All RTI cases turning on §3]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-3 section-6}}

§4 disclosure continuity — SC directive line

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§4 disclosure continuity — SC directive line,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §4,§4 continuity,proactive disclosure,stale data)&metatag-description=(Proactive disclosure under §4 must be kept current — stale 'last updated 2015' pages do not satisfy §4[2].)}}
	+
	+	====== §4 disclosure continuity — SC directive line ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§4 disclosure must be kept current; stale §4(1)(b) pages do not satisfy the continuing-obligation standard.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI activists collective \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Union/State governments \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b), §4(2) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Proactive disclosure under §4 must be kept current — stale 'last updated 2015' pages do not satisfy §4(2).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§4(1)(b) mandates 17 categories of proactive disclosure; §4(2) creates a continuing obligation. A disclosure page last updated years earlier — showing old budgets, old officer lists — does not discharge the duty. Up-to-date publication is essential.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§4 continuity, proactive disclosure, stale data
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/mazdoor-kisan-shakti-sangathan-v-uoi-2018-sc\|Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-25-annual-report-cic-2019\|§25 annual report — disclosure obligation]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-environmental-clearances-rti-2020\|Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-dpdp-interface-2025\|DPDP 2025 effect on §8(1)(j) — Delhi HC guidance]] (HC-DEL 2025)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-4}}

RTI § 22 harmony with special laws

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI § 22 harmony with special laws,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §22,RTI §8,§22,harmony,special laws,privacy)&metatag-description=(§22 overriding effect read harmoniously with specific privacy protections in special laws [e.g., Mental Health Act, DNA Bill].)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI § 22 harmony with special laws ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§22 is read harmoniously with privacy carve-outs in special laws — blanket override not absolute.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §22, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§22 overriding effect read harmoniously with specific privacy protections in special laws (e.g., Mental Health Act, DNA Bill).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	While §22 grants RTI Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions, specific privacy protections in other statutes — Mental Health Act, Juvenile Justice Act, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act — continue to apply where they express specific legislative intent.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§22, harmony, special laws, privacy
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-22-overriding-effect-2012\|§22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-overriding-official-secrets-2016\|§22 vs. Official Secrets Act]] (SC 2016)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-biometric-data-rti-2019\|Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=22\|All RTI cases turning on §22]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-22 section-8}}

§22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §22,§22,overriding,Official Secrets Act,non-obstante)&metatag-description=(§22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws — subject to express saving clauses.)}}
	+
	+	====== §22 overriding effect — RTI over conflicting laws ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2012-01-01 · Citation awaited · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§22 RTI overrides inconsistent provisions in other laws (e.g., Official Secrets Act) unless expressly saved.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2012-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various \|
	+	^ Respondent \| various \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §22 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws — subject to express saving clauses.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§22 of the RTI Act contains a non-obstante clause giving it overriding effect over other laws to the extent of inconsistency. Specific saving clauses in other statutes (e.g., cabinet secrecy, official secrets) must be read harmoniously with the RTI Act.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§22, overriding, Official Secrets Act, non-obstante
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-22-mental-health-act-harmony-2020\|RTI § 22 harmony with special laws]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-overriding-official-secrets-2016\|§22 vs. Official Secrets Act]] (SC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-biometric-data-rti-2019\|Biometric / Aadhaar records — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/dav-college-trust-v-director-2019-sc\|D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=22\|All RTI cases turning on §22]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-22 landmark}}

§25 annual report — disclosure obligation

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§25 annual report — disclosure obligation,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §25,§25,annual report,Information Commission)&metatag-description=(§25 annual reports by CIC/SIC must be published timely and laid before Parliament/State legislature.)}}
	+
	+	====== §25 annual report — disclosure obligation ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//§25 annual reports must be timely published and laid before the legislature; stale reports actionable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Transparency advocates \|
	+	^ Respondent \| CIC / SIC \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §25 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	§25 annual reports by CIC/SIC must be published timely and laid before Parliament/State legislature.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	§25 of the RTI Act requires every Information Commission to prepare an annual report on the implementation of the Act. The report must be timely (by end of the next financial year) and laid before Parliament / State legislature. Stale or non-existent reports are actionable.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	§25, annual report, Information Commission
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020\|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-environmental-clearances-rti-2020\|Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-4-disclosure-continuity-2019\|§4 disclosure continuity — SC directive line]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=25\|All RTI cases turning on §25]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-25}}

Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Secretary General Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal,High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §2,RTI §8,CJI,judges' assets,Delhi HC Full Bench,§2(h),§8(1)(j))&metatag-description=(Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI [affirmed by SC 2019].)}}
	+
	+	====== Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) · 2010-01-12 · ILR (2010) 2 Del 785 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets accessible subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2010-01-12 \|
	+	^ Citation \| ILR (2010) 2 Del 785 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A.P. Shah, Vikramajit Sen, S. Muralidhar \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Secretary General, Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §2(h), §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI (affirmed by SC 2019).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The office of the Chief Justice of India is a 'public authority' under §2(h). Voluntary asset declarations made by judges to the CJI are disclosable under RTI subject to §8(1)(j) balancing. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2019.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	CJI, judges' assets, Delhi HC Full Bench, §2(h), §8(1)(j)
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-cpio-v-subhash-collegium-files-2019\|CJI office — collegium recommendations & resolutions]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-judicial-salary-2019\|Judges' salary / allowances — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024]] (HC-MAD 2024)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-bar-council-2018\|Bar Council of India under RTI — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=2\|All RTI cases turning on §2]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1579064/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-2 section-8 landmark}}

Land-acquisition records — Andhra Pradesh SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Land-acquisition records — Andhra Pradesh SIC,Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,land acquisition,AP SIC,RFCTLARR,compensation)&metatag-description=(Land-acquisition notifications, compensation statements, and R&R award records disclosable to affected parties.)}}
	+
	+	====== Land-acquisition records — Andhra Pradesh SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Land-acquisition notifications + compensation records disclosable to affected land-losers under RTI.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Land-loser / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Revenue / LA authority \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Land-acquisition notifications, compensation statements, and R&R award records disclosable to affected parties.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Land-acquisition §11 notifications, §19 declarations, award statements under the LA Act / RFCTLARR 2013, and Rehabilitation & Resettlement awards are public records disclosable to affected land-losers under RTI. Third-party compensation details remain subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	land acquisition, AP SIC, RFCTLARR, compensation
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/allahabad-hc-rti-land-records-2017\|Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC]] (HC-UP 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/karnataka-hc-rti-tender-records-2016\|Tender records post-award — Karnataka HC]] (HC-KAR 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-iota-v-harinder-dhingra-2013\|Indian Olympic Association v. Harinder Dhingra]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-political-parties-2013\|Political Parties as 'Public Authorities' — CIC Full Bench 2013]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-AP\|All Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-ap section-4 section-7}}

Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC,Goa State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,mining,Goa SIC,§4(1)(b),royalty)&metatag-description=(Mining lease details, royalty returns, environmental-compliance status are §4 disclosure material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Mining leases & royalty records — Goa SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Goa State Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Mining leases + royalty returns are §4(1)(b) public-interest records — must be proactively disclosed.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Goa State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Environmental activist / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Mines & Geology Dept \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Mining lease details, royalty returns, environmental-compliance status are §4 disclosure material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Mining leases, royalty returns, lease-period, area-details, environmental-compliance status and mining-plan documents are records carrying significant public interest (revenue, environment, land). §4(1)(b) requires proactive disclosure on the state-department portal.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	mining, Goa SIC, §4(1)(b), royalty
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-environmental-clearances-rti-2020\|Environmental clearances & EIA — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-foreign-contribution-ngo-returns-2019\|FCRA returns of NGOs — CIC]] (CIC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-tax-returns-2020\|Tax returns of public servants — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/allahabad-hc-rti-land-records-2017\|Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC]] (HC-UP 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-GA\|All Goa State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-ga section-4 section-7}}

Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC,Karnataka State Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,RTI §24,police,Karnataka SIC,§8(1)(h),complaint status)&metatag-description=(Closure reports + complaint-status records disclosable to complainant; investigation-specific material protected.)}}
	+
	+	====== Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Karnataka State Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Complainant entitled to complaint-status & closure reports; live investigation content protected under §8(1)(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Karnataka State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Complainant / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Police department \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Closure reports + complaint-status records disclosable to complainant; investigation-specific material protected.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A complainant has the right to know the status of their complaint, the final closure report, and administrative disposition records. Live investigation content (witness statements, surveillance plans) remains protected under §8(1)(h).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	police, Karnataka SIC, §8(1)(h), complaint status
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc\|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014\|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] (HC-DEL 2007)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-KA\|All Karnataka State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24\|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-ka section-7 section-8 section-24}}

Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC,Kerala State Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,PDS,ration card,Kerala SIC,§4(1)(b)(xii))&metatag-description=(PDS/ration card beneficiary lists disclosable as a §4 suo-motu category.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Kerala State Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//PDS beneficiary lists are §4 suo-motu material; individual card entitlements also disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Kerala State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Civil Supplies Dept \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §7, §8 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	PDS/ration card beneficiary lists disclosable as a §4 suo-motu category.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	PDS beneficiary lists at the fair-price-shop level are public-subsidy records under §4(1)(b)(xii). Individual card-holder entitlement details are disclosable to the card-holder under §7.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PDS, ration card, Kerala SIC, §4(1)(b)(xii)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-wb-ration-irregularity-2022\|Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC]] (SIC-WB 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/punjab-haryana-hc-scholarship-records-2019\|Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC]] (HC-PB 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-budget-mid-day-meal-2018\|Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-KL\|All Kerala State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-kl section-7 section-8}}

Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC,Maharashtra State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,corporator,local body,§4(1)(b),Maharashtra SIC,development funds)&metatag-description=(Local-body corporator fund utilisation records are proactively disclosable under §4[1][b].)}}
	+
	+	====== Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Maharashtra State Information Commission · 2019-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Corporator / councillor fund utilisation is proactive-disclosure material under §4(1)(b).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Maharashtra State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2019-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Municipal Corporation \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Local-body corporator fund utilisation records are proactively disclosable under §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Funds allocated to corporators, councillors, and MPs for local development are public monies. Their utilisation records fall within the mandatory disclosure categories under §4(1)(b) and must be published suo motu.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	corporator, local body, §4(1)(b), Maharashtra SIC, development funds
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/mazdoor-kisan-shakti-sangathan-v-uoi-2018-sc\|Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India]] (SC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-ts-rti-hospital-billing-2021\|Government-hospital billing — Telangana SIC]] (SIC-TS 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/allahabad-hc-rti-land-records-2017\|Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC]] (HC-UP 2017)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-MH\|All Maharashtra State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-mh section-4 section-7}}

Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC,Odisha State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,MGNREGS,Odisha SIC,§4(1)(b)(xii),village)&metatag-description=(MGNREGS muster rolls, job-card registers, and village-works expenditure are §4[1][b][xii] material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Odisha State Information Commission · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//MGNREGS muster rolls + job-card data are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy-programme records — must be proactively published.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Odisha State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2020-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Village resident \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Block / Panchayat \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b)(xii) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	MGNREGS muster rolls, job-card registers, and village-works expenditure are §4(1)(b)(xii) material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is a subsidy programme under §4(1)(b)(xii). Muster rolls, job-card registers, wage payments, and village-level works expenditure must be proactively published — including display at the Panchayat office.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	MGNREGS, Odisha SIC, §4(1)(b)(xii), village
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-wb-ration-irregularity-2022\|Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC]] (SIC-WB 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-budget-mid-day-meal-2018\|Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-kerala-ration-card-records-2020\|Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC]] (SIC-KL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/punjab-haryana-hc-scholarship-records-2019\|Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC]] (HC-PB 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-OR\|All Odisha State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-or section-4 section-7}}

Scholarship disbursal delays — Punjab SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Scholarship disbursal delays — Punjab SIC,Punjab State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §19,RTI §20,scholarship,Punjab SIC,systemic delay,§19(8)(a))&metatag-description=(Systemic scholarship-disbursal delays actionable via RTI; SIC directed monthly publication of pending-list status.)}}
	+
	+	====== Scholarship disbursal delays — Punjab SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Punjab State Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Systemic scholarship delays: SIC may direct monthly publication of pending-list under §19(8)(a).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Punjab State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Student / applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Scholarship department \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4, §7, §19, §20 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Systemic scholarship-disbursal delays actionable via RTI; SIC directed monthly publication of pending-list status.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Where scholarship disbursal is systemically delayed across thousands of applicants, the SIC under §19(8)(a) may direct the department to publish a monthly pending-list showing scheme, month of sanction, and disbursal status. Structural remedies are within Commission powers.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	scholarship, Punjab SIC, systemic delay, §19(8)(a)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/punjab-haryana-hc-scholarship-records-2019\|Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC]] (HC-PB 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-wb-ration-irregularity-2022\|Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC]] (SIC-WB 2022)
	+	* [[/cases/prime-minister-relief-fund-cic-2015\|PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling]] (CIC 2015)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-PB\|All Punjab State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=20\|All RTI cases turning on §20]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-pb section-4 section-7 section-19 section-20}}

PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC,Rajasthan State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,RTI §8,PDS leakage,Rajasthan SIC,§8(1)(h),closure report)&metatag-description=(Completed PDS-leakage inquiry reports disclosable; live vigilance inquiry protected under §8[1][h].)}}
	+
	+	====== PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Rajasthan State Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Completed PDS-leakage closure reports disclosable; only active vigilance investigation under §8(1)(h).//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Rajasthan State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Village resident \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Civil Supplies Dept. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(h) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Completed PDS-leakage inquiry reports disclosable; live vigilance inquiry protected under §8(1)(h).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Once a PDS-leakage inquiry is complete and the closure report prepared, the report + disciplinary outcome is disclosable. Only the live-phase (pending-vigilance) records are protected under §8(1)(h). Routine FPS stock books remain §4(1)(b)(xii) material throughout.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	PDS leakage, Rajasthan SIC, §8(1)(h), closure report
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-vigilance-investigation-2015\|Vigilance investigation records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021\|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-kerala-ration-card-records-2020\|Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC]] (SIC-KL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-question-paper-leak-investigations-2021\|Question-paper-leak investigation records]] (SC 2021)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-wb-ration-irregularity-2022\|Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC]] (SIC-WB 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-RJ\|All Rajasthan State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-rj section-4 section-7 section-8}}

Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC,Tamil Nadu State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,municipality,works,Tamil Nadu SIC,§4(1)(b))&metatag-description=(Municipal works-register, tendered contracts, and completion certificates are §4 material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Municipal works records — Tamil Nadu SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Tamil Nadu State Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Municipal works register + tender + completion records: §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Tamil Nadu State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Citizen / RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Municipality \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Municipal works-register, tendered contracts, and completion certificates are §4 material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A municipality's works-register (road laying, drainage, street-lighting) along with the tender file, contractor details, and completion certificates must be proactively disclosed under §4(1)(b). Third-party contractor data remains subject to §11 notice.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	municipality, works, Tamil Nadu SIC, §4(1)(b)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-private-contract-with-govt-2019\|Private contractor records with govt — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/rajasthan-hc-village-accounts-rti-2018\|Village panchayat accounts — Rajasthan HC]] (HC-RAJ 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-commercial-confidence-psu-2020\|PSU commercial terms — §8(1)(d) — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-TN\|All Tamil Nadu State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-tn section-4 section-7}}

Government-hospital billing — Telangana SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Government-hospital billing — Telangana SIC,Telangana State Information Commission RTI,RTI §7,RTI §8,hospital billing,Telangana SIC,§8(1)(j),Ayushman,Aarogyasri)&metatag-description=(A patient / immediate family is entitled to detailed billing records, scheme utilisation, and treatment summaries.)}}
	+
	+	====== Government-hospital billing — Telangana SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Telangana State Information Commission · 2021-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Patient or immediate family: full entitlement to own billing, scheme utilisation (Ayushman), treatment records.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Telangana State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2021-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Patient / relative \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Government hospital \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(j) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	A patient / immediate family is entitled to detailed billing records, scheme utilisation, and treatment summaries.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A patient is a data subject in respect of their own medical information — §8(1)(j) cannot be invoked against them. Immediate family (spouse, parents, children) is entitled to billing, scheme utilisation (PMJAY/Aarogyasri), and summary treatment records in case of medical need.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	hospital billing, Telangana SIC, §8(1)(j), Ayushman, Aarogyasri
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-maharashtra-corporator-records-2019\|Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC]] (SIC-MH 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015\|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-inspection-records-medical-2018\|Hospital inspection reports — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-medical-records-of-deceased-2018\|Medical records of deceased relative — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018\|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-TS\|All Telangana State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-ts section-7 section-8}}

Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC,West Bengal State Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,ration card,FPS,West Bengal SIC,§4(1)(b)(xii),PDS)&metatag-description=(Ration-card holder lists by FPS and monthly stock-book records are §4[1][b][xii] subsidy material.)}}
	+
	+	====== Ration-card irregularities — West Bengal SIC ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	West Bengal State Information Commission · 2022-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//FPS card-holder lists + monthly stock books are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy records — publicly disclosable.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| West Bengal State Information Commission \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2022-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| RTI applicant \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Dept of Food & Civil Supplies \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §4(1)(b)(xii) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Ration-card holder lists by FPS and monthly stock-book records are §4(1)(b)(xii) subsidy material.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Fair-price-shop level ration-card holder lists, monthly stock receipt/issue books, and distribution records are §4(1)(b)(xii) material. Any 'irregularity complaint' investigation thereafter becomes a separate §8(1)(h) matter only during its active pendency.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	ration card, FPS, West Bengal SIC, §4(1)(b)(xii), PDS
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sic-kerala-ration-card-records-2020\|Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC]] (SIC-KL 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-odisha-rti-village-works-2020\|Village-level works & MGNREGS — Odisha SIC]] (SIC-OR 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/punjab-haryana-hc-scholarship-records-2019\|Scholarship records — Punjab & Haryana HC]] (HC-PB 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-budget-mid-day-meal-2018\|Mid-day Meal scheme records — CIC]] (CIC 2018)
	+	* [[/cases/sic-rajasthan-rti-ration-irregularity-2021\|PDS leakage investigation — Rajasthan SIC]] (SIC-RJ 2021)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SIC-WB\|All West Bengal State Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sic-wb section-4 section-7}}

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer),Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) RTI,open government,transparency,Article 19(1)(a),foundational)&metatag-description=(Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19[1][a]; limited by national security etc.)}}
	+
	+	====== S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 1981-12-30 · AIR 1982 SC 149 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Disclosure is the rule; secrecy the exception. Open government is the basic rule.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) \|
	+	^ Decided \| 1981-12-30 \|
	+	^ Citation \| AIR 1982 SC 149 \|
	+	^ Bench \| P.N. Bhagwati, A.C. Gupta, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, D.A. Desai, R.S. Pathak, E.S. Venkataramiah \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| S.P. Gupta & Ors. \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Union of India \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| — \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Right to information on matters of public interest inheres in Article 19(1)(a); limited by national security etc.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The right to know emanates from the right of free speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a). Disclosure of information is the rule; concealment, the exception.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	open government, transparency, Article 19(1)(a), foundational
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala]] (SC 2013)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/state-of-up-v-raj-narain-1975-sc\|State of U.P. v. Raj Narain]] (SC 1975)
	+	* [[/cases/union-of-india-v-association-for-democratic-reforms-2002-sc\|Union of India v. ADR (2002)]] (SC 2002)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal\|CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc landmark}}

Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs,Various High Courts RTI,RTI §28,RTI §6,RTI §7,State Rules,§28,ultra vires,fees,word limit)&metatag-description=(State RTI Rules that impose excessive fees or form restrictions are ultra vires the Act.)}}
	+
	+	====== Validity of State RTI Rules — various HCs ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Various High Courts · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//State RTI rules imposing excessive fees, word limits, or form restrictions beyond the Act are ultra vires.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Various High Courts \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2016-01-01 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| various RTI activists \|
	+	^ Respondent \| State Governments \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §28, §6, §7 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	State RTI Rules that impose excessive fees or form restrictions are ultra vires the Act.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	While States are empowered under §28 to make Rules, these cannot impose restrictions inconsistent with the Act — e.g., word limits on applications, excessive fees, or mandatory forms that deter genuine applicants.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	State Rules, §28, ultra vires, fees, word limit
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-inspection-charge-2014\|Inspection charges — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-limitation-whole-india-2019\|RTI Act 2019 Amendment — Commissioner terms]] (SC 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-state-cabinet-2020\|State-cabinet records — §8(1)(i) applicability]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-overriding-official-secrets-2016\|§22 vs. Official Secrets Act]] (SC 2016)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-pending-supreme-court-decisions-2022\|Records of pending SC cases — not disclosable via RTI]] (SC 2022)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=HC-DEL\|All Various High Courts rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=28\|All RTI cases turning on §28]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=6\|All RTI cases turning on §6]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-hc-del section-28 section-6 section-7}}

State of U.P. v. Raj Narain

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(State of U.P. v. Raj Narain,Supreme Court of India RTI,right to know,Article 19(1)(a),foundational,pre-RTI)&metatag-description=(Foundational articulation of citizen's right to know the workings of government under Article 19[1][a].)}}
	+
	+	====== State of U.P. v. Raj Narain ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 1975-01-24 · (1975) 4 SCC 428 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Pre-RTI foundation: 'people are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing'.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 1975-01-24 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (1975) 4 SCC 428 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A.N. Ray, K.K. Mathew, M. Hameedullah Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| State of U.P. \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Raj Narain & Ors. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| — \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Foundational articulation of citizen's right to know the workings of government under Article 19(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	In a government of responsibility like ours, the people have a right to know every public act, every thing that is done in a public way, by their functionaries. The right to know flows from Article 19(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	right to know, Article 19(1)(a), foundational, pre-RTI
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/union-of-india-v-association-for-democratic-reforms-2002-sc\|Union of India v. ADR (2002)]] (SC 2002)
	+	* [[/cases/sp-gupta-v-uoi-1981-sc\|S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer)]] (SC 1981)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-section-3-citizen-not-person-2012\|§3 — right available to 'citizens', not 'persons']] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/438670/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc landmark}}

Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line,Central Information Commission RTI,RTI §4,RTI §7,§4 disclosure,repeat requests,public domain,CIC)&metatag-description=(Information already disclosed under §4 or in public domain can be pointed to, not re-compiled.)}}
	+
	+	====== Repeat-information rejection — CIC guidance line ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Central Information Commission · 2012-01-01 · multiple CIC orders
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/sc-rti-whistleblower-protection-2014\|RTI whistleblower protection — §8(1)(g)]] (SC 2014)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/irrelevant-information\|Irrelevant Information — CIC directive line]] (CIC 2010)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-section-6-2-motive-2013\|§6(2) no-motive rule — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC\|All Central Information Commission rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=4\|All RTI cases turning on §4]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=7\|All RTI cases turning on §7]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-cic section-4 section-7}}

Union of India v. ADR (2002)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Union of India v. ADR (2002),Supreme Court of India RTI,voter rights,Article 19(1)(a),candidates,ADR)&metatag-description=(Voters' right to know criminal antecedents of candidates flows from Article 19[1][a].)}}
	+
	+	====== Union of India v. ADR (2002) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2002-05-02 · (2002) 5 SCC 294 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Voters have a fundamental right to know candidates' educational and criminal background.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2002-05-02 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2002) 5 SCC 294 \|
	+	^ Bench \| M.B. Shah, P. Venkatarama Reddi, D.M. Dharmadhikari \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Union of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Association for Democratic Reforms \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| — \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Rejected \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Voters' right to know criminal antecedents of candidates flows from Article 19(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	Right of voters to know the antecedents of candidates (criminal, educational, financial) is a facet of the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a).
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	voter rights, Article 19(1)(a), candidates, ADR
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/state-of-up-v-raj-narain-1975-sc\|State of U.P. v. Raj Narain]] (SC 1975)
	+	* [[/cases/sp-gupta-v-uoi-1981-sc\|S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges' Transfer)]] (SC 1981)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|ADR v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)]] (SC 2024)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India]] (SC 2017)
	+	* [[/cases/raj-narain-inspection-of-records-cic\|Inspection of records under RTI — CIC guidance]] (CIC 2013)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1969869/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc landmark}}

Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review),Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §12,RTI §15,RTI §16,Information Commission,review,Namit Sharma,bench composition)&metatag-description=(Review of Namit Sharma — two-member judicial-bench rule relaxed; Commissions allowed broader composition.)}}
	+
	+	====== Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review) ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2013-09-03 · (2013) 10 SCC 359 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//Relaxes the earlier Namit Sharma requirement of judicial-only benches for Information Commissions.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2013-09-03 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2013) 10 SCC 359 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A.K. Patnaik, Arjan Kumar Sikri \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Union of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Namit Sharma \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §12, §15, §16 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Review of Namit Sharma — two-member judicial-bench rule relaxed; Commissions allowed broader composition.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The 2012 Namit Sharma directions requiring every bench of the Information Commission to include a judicial member are relaxed. Commissions may be constituted with non-judicial members, but must follow fair procedure.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	Information Commission, review, Namit Sharma, bench composition
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/namit-sharma-vs-uoi\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+
	+	===== Later rulings that cite this case =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/court/anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india\|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India]] (SC 2019)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/namit-sharma-vs-uoi\|Namit Sharma v. Union of India]] (SC 2012)
	+	* [[/cases/sc-natural-justice-rti-commission-hearing-2020\|Natural justice in Information Commission hearings]] (SC 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/khanapuram-gandaiah\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-judicial-academies-2020\|Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-vacancies-anjali-bhardwaj-follow-up-2023\|Information Commission vacancies — 2023 follow-up]] (SC 2023)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=12\|All RTI cases turning on §12]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=15\|All RTI cases turning on §15]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=16\|All RTI cases turning on §16]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103330895/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-12 section-15 section-16 landmark}}

Union of India v. R. Jayachandran

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Union of India v. R. Jayachandran,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §19,FAA,speaking order,§19,reasoned order)&metatag-description=(FAA speaking orders must engage with the PIO's reasoning; summary dismissals set aside.)}}
	+
	+	====== Union of India v. R. Jayachandran ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2017-12-12 · Citation awaited
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//FAA must issue reasoned 'speaking orders' engaging with PIO reasoning; summary dismissals are liable to review.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2017-12-12 \|
	+	^ Citation \| Citation awaited \|
	+	^ Bench \| R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Union of India \|
	+	^ Respondent \| R. Jayachandran \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §19 \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Partly allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	FAA speaking orders must engage with the PIO's reasoning; summary dismissals set aside.
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	A First Appellate Authority under §19(1) is a quasi-judicial body. Its orders must be 'speaking orders' that analyse the PIO's reasoning, the statutory provision invoked, and the factual matrix. Summary one-line affirmations do not meet this standard.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	FAA, speaking order, §19, reasoned order
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-reasoned-order-2014\|PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/madras-hc-rti-right-of-audience-2020\|Applicant's right to be heard at FAA / Commission — Madras HC]] (HC-MAD 2020)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/khanapuram-gandaiah\|Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer]] (SC 2010)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-posting-transfer-2019\|Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2019)
	+	* [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-reply-in-wrong-form-2018\|§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2018)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19\|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-19}}

UPSC v. Angesh Kumar

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 18:29:22 +0000

2026/04/21 21:16	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(UPSC v. Angesh Kumar,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §8,UPSC,civil services,scaling,§8(1)(e),§8(1)(d))&metatag-description=(Exam-related records of UPSC CSE [cut-off, scaled score tabulation, disqualification criteria] protected under §8[1][e]/[d].)}}
	+
	+	====== UPSC v. Angesh Kumar ======
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Supreme Court of India · 2018-02-20 · (2018) 4 SCC 530 · ★ Landmark
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	//UPSC's scaling & raw-score methodology, cut-off mechanics and marks-moderation records are §8(1)(e) / (d) protected.//
	+
	+	===== Case details =====
	+
	+	^ Court \| Supreme Court of India \|
	+	^ Decided \| 2018-02-20 \|
	+	^ Citation \| (2018) 4 SCC 530 \|
	+	^ Bench \| A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan \|
	+	^ Petitioner \| Union Public Service Commission \|
	+	^ Respondent \| Angesh Kumar & Ors. \|
	+	^ RTI Act sections \| §8(1)(d), §8(1)(e) \|
	+	^ Outcome \| Applicant allowed \|
	+
	+	===== Outcome =====
	+
	+	Exam-related records of UPSC CSE (cut-off, scaled score tabulation, disqualification criteria) protected under §8(1)(e)/(d).
	+
	+	===== Ratio decidendi =====
	+
	+	The raw score, scaling methodology and moderation records of the UPSC Civil Services Examination are held in fiduciary capacity with a public interest in protecting exam integrity. Disclosure would compromise future examinations; §8(1)(e) and §8(1)(d) apply.
	+
	+	===== Keywords =====
	+
	+	UPSC, civil services, scaling, §8(1)(e), §8(1)(d)
	+
	+	===== This case cites =====
	+
	+	* [[/important-decisions/cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/icai-vs-shaunak-h-satya\|ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya]] (SC 2011)
	+
	+	===== 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.//
	+
	+	* [[/cases/cic-recruitment-panels-anonymity-2014\|Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line]] (CIC 2014)
	+	* [[/cases/central-board-secondary-education-v-central-information-commission-2011-delhi-hc\|CBSE v. Central Information Commission]] (HC-DEL 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cbse-v-paresh-ghadge-cic\|Open-evaluation regime post-Aditya Bandopadhyay — CIC directives]] (CIC 2012)
	+	* [[/important-decisions/icai-vs-shaunak-h-satya\|ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya]] (SC 2011)
	+	* [[/cases/cic-rti-recruitment-answer-keys-2020\|Answer keys of recruitment exams — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC\|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8\|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1\|All landmark rulings]]
	+	* [[:cases:search\|Full case-law search]]
	+	* [[:cases\|Case-Law Database — overview]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
	+	* [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32619340/\|External reported text →]]
	+
	+	<WRAP center round alert 95%>
	+	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.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	~~NOCACHE~~
	+
	+	//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>case-law court-sc section-8 landmark}}