Right to Information Wiki - explanations

Annual Confidential Report

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:46:46 +0000

2018/06/03 05:36		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{keywords>ACR under RTI,APAR,RTI Confidential,Official Secret Act}}		{{keywords>ACR under RTI,APAR,RTI Confidential,Official Secret Act}}
	====== Annual Confidential Report ======		====== Annual Confidential Report ======
-	{{tag>ACR,Section-8}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations annual confidential report rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Disclosure of Annual Confidential Report under RTI aka Annual Performance Report.)}}
		+
		+
		+	{{tag>acr section-8}}
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}
	Disclosure of Annual Confidential Report under RTI aka Annual Performance Report.		Disclosure of Annual Confidential Report under RTI aka Annual Performance Report.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	As per the %%DoPT%% OM dated 10/20/2006-IR Dated 21st September 2007((D{{:explanations:apar-disclosure-rti.pdf\|oPT OM dated 10/20/2006-IR Dated 21st September 2007}}: Disclosure of Annual Confidential Reports under the RTI Act 2005)), following is held
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	As per the DoPT OM dated 10/20/2006-IR Dated 21st September 2007((D{{:explanations:apar-disclosure-rti.pdf\|oPT OM dated 10/20/2006-IR Dated 21st September 2007}}: Disclosure of Annual Confidential Reports under the RTI Act 2005)), following is held	+
	===== Can ACR be disclosed =====		===== Can ACR be disclosed =====

-	The public authority is not under obligation to disclose ACRs of any employee to the employee himself or to any other person inasmuch as disclosure of ACRs is protected by clause (j) of sub-section (1) of [[act:\|Section 8 of the RTI Act]]; and an ACR is a confidential document, disclosure of which is protected by the Official Secrets Act, 1923.	+	The [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] is not under obligation to disclose ACRs of any employee to the employee himself or to any other person inasmuch as disclosure of ACRs is protected by clause (j) of sub-section (1) of [[act:\|Section 8 of the RTI Act]]; and an ACR is a confidential document, disclosure of which is protected by the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
	===== Is there an exception to disclosure of ACR =====		===== Is there an exception to disclosure of ACR =====
-	However, the public authority has the discretion to disclose the Annual Confidential Reports of an employee to the employee himself or to any other person, if the public authority is satisfied that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. If it is felt that public interest in disclosure of ACT of any employee outweighs the protected interests, decision to disclose the ACRs should be taken with the approval of the competent authority.	+	However, the public authority has the discretion to disclose the Annual Confidential Reports of an employee to the employee himself or to any other person, if the public authority is satisfied that the [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. If it is felt that public interest in disclosure of ACT of any employee outweighs the protected interests, decision to disclose the ACRs should be taken with the approval of the [[explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]].

	Competent authority in the matter may be decided by the concerned public authority.		Competent authority in the matter may be decided by the concerned public authority.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	===== Discuss this topic =====		===== Discuss this topic =====

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~

Citizenship under RTI Act 2005

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:14:58 +0000

2018/06/01 02:02		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======		====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======
-	{{tag>citizenship,india}}{{like>}}	+
-	{{ :explanations:citizenship-rti.jpg?400 \|}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations citizen under rti act rti right to information india)
-	Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information.	+	metatag-description=(Only citizens can apply for the information under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Only a citizen of India can file a Right to Information application. A company, firm, trust, or other juristic person cannot.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* File the application under your own name as an individual, with your signature.
		+	* Do not file on a company letterhead or in the name of a trust. A Public Information Officer can refuse on this ground.
		+	* The Act does not ask for a passport, Aadhaar, or voter identity card as proof of citizenship. A declaration in the application that you are a citizen of India is ordinarily sufficient.
		+	* A director or employee of a company, applying in his or her own name as an individual citizen, can file. The information supplied may then be used by the company, but the right to apply is of the individual, not of the company.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{tag>citizenship india}}
		+	{{ :explanations:citizenship-rti.jpg?400x300 \|}}
		+	Only citizens can apply for the [[explanations:information\|information]] under this Act. Right to Information Act confers right not to all persons, but only on Citizens. The Application must be under the name and signature of a citizen as a person. Therefore, a corporation, company or anybody of individuals whether incorporated or not, is not entitled to seek information.

	‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person.		‘Person’ defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, include natural person and juristic person.
Line 9:		Line 29:

	In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))]		In a case of Inder Grover v Ministry of Railways [(No. CIC/OK/A/2006/000121 27.06.2006 (CIC))]
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	"Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act."		"Persons applying for information under this Act should apply as natural and individual persons (citizens). Corporate bodies and juristic persons can not apply for information under this act. If a person applies as a representative of a corporate body then he is not entitled for the information required under this act."
Line 28:		Line 37:

	- Section-3 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to all CITIZENS. Section-6(1) further provides that a ‘person’ who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request in writing.		- Section-3 of the RTI Act confers the Right to Information to all CITIZENS. Section-6(1) further provides that a ‘person’ who desires to obtain information under the Act shall make a request in writing.
-	- Section-5(1) provides that every public authority shall designate as many officers as the Central or State Public Information Officers in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.	+	- Section-5(1) provides that every [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] shall designate as many officers as the Central or State Public Information Officers in all administrative units or offices under it to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.
	- Section-5(3) provides that every Central or State Public Information Officer shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.		- Section-5(3) provides that every Central or State Public Information Officer shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.
	- Section-18(1) provides that Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person.		- Section-18(1) provides that Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person.
Line 42:		Line 51:
	===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act =====		===== More Explanation on Citizenship under RTI Act =====
	<pagebreak>		<pagebreak>
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ====		==== The first issue is whether a juristic person can seek information under the Right to Information Act? ====

-	The issue whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held:	+	The issue of whether the word “person’ mentioned in Rule-1 of Order XXXIII of CPC refers only to a natural person or includes also other juridical persons came up before the Apex Court in //Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International [(Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction & Ors (AIR 2001 SC 2277))]//, in which the Apex Court held that a public limited company which is otherwise entitled to maintain a suit as a legal person can very well maintain an application under Order XXXIII Rule-1 of CPC. The Apex Court made reference to serious of decisions on the subject and held that a survey of various decisions should show that preponderance of the view is that the word “person” referred to in Order XXXIII includes a juristic person also. The Apex Court quoted with approval an earliest decision of Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd [(Perumal Koundan Vs. Tirumalrayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sanka Nidhi Ltd (AIR 1918 Madras 362))] in which case the company registered under the Companies Act went into liquidation and the appointed official liquidator applied to file a suit on behalf of the company in forma pauperis against the petitioner therein and the petitioners raised objections that the company could not file a suit in forma pauperis. Repelling this contention the Division Bench held:


-	“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently the definition of word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.”	+	“We are unable to accept this contention. The word ‘person’ is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure and consequently, the definition of the word ‘person’ as including any Company or Association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, in the General Clauses Act ( X of 1897 ) would apply unless there is something repugnant to the subject or context.”

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//:		In the same case, the Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion that the word “person’ is to be given it’s meaning in the context in which it is used. The Hon'ble Apex Court has cited the following observations of //Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association [(Lord Selborne in Pharmaceutical Society Vs. London and Provincial Supply Association (6 Appeal Cases 857))]//:
Line 80:		Line 67:


-	It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 include natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”. Every citizen is a person but the vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.	+	It is thus a settled position of law that the term ‘person’ referred to in General Clauses Act, 1897 includes natural person and juristic persons. However, the Right to Information Act confers the right not to all ‘persons’ but only on ‘citizens’ and there is no ambiguity about the definition of the term ‘citizen’. A juristic person can be a “person” but he cannot be a “citizen”. Every citizen is a person but vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.
		+
		+	The issue of whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions.

-	The issue whether corporation or juridical person can be recognized as citizen has been adjudicated in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and ors. Vs Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 106 ))]// by revisiting its earlier decisions.

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
	====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======		====== Citizenship under RTI Act 2005 ======

Line 104:		Line 80:

	In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company.		In the case of //Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others[(Express News Papers and Another Vs Union of India and others [(1959) SCR 12])], Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India [(Sakal Papers (P) Ltd and Ors Vs. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305))]// relief has been granted to the petitioners claiming fundamental rights as shareholders or editors of newspaper companies. In both these cases, there was no plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that one of the petitioners happened to be a company.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	In the case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: …..		In the case of //Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd//[(Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd)], the Apex Court held that: …..

Line 133:		Line 98:

	A “Citizen” under the Constitution Part II that deals with “citizenship” can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: “Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”		A “Citizen” under the Constitution Part II that deals with “citizenship” can only be a natural born person and it does not even by implication include a legal or a juristic person Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act defines a person as under: “Person” does not include a company, an association or a Body of individuals whether incorporated or not.”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company.		The objective of the Right to Information Act is to secure access to information to all citizens or order to promote transparency and accountability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in //Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India//[(Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors Vs. Union of India (decided in the year 1973))] (decided in the year 1973) held that a shareholder is entitled to protection of Article 19 and that an individual’s right is not lost by reason of the fact that he is a shareholder of the company.

Line 162:		Line 116:

	In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[act:\|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]].		In conclusion we direct that an application / appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed. The CPIO, CPWD, Kolkata will dispose of the present application of Shri Talukdar accordingly, as mandated by Sections 6 and [[act:\|7 of the RTI Act, 2005]].
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	In the case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that –		In the case of //Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax//[(Secretary, Cuttack Tax Bar Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIC/AT/A/2007/00410 decided on 03/03/2008))], the Full Bench of CIC held that –

Line 188:		Line 131:
	52. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is seeking this information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of India u/s 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper-technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter, we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s 3 to seek the impugned information.</blockquote>		52. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the Respondent. It is true that appellant has sought the impugned information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young and has regularly appeared before the Commission to canvass his case. The fact, however, remains that appellant is a citizen of India and this proposition has not been challenged on behalf of PFCL. Even if the appellant is seeking this information on behalf of M/s Ernst & Young, he is doing so as a citizen of India u/s 3 of the Act. The Commission, therefore, is not inclined to take a hyper-technical view in the matter. In view of the precedent cited by the counsel for the appellant adverted to herein above and also by taking a pragmatic view in the matter, we hold that the appellant is well within his rights u/s 3 to seek the impugned information.</blockquote>

-	==== Conclusions ====	+	===== Conclusions =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	* When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.		* When an RTI Application is made by a shareholder or a Managing Director or Director or Official of a company or any legal entity, under his name and signature, (even when using the company/association Letter Head), his status as a citizen does not cease to exist and therefore the RTI application is maintainable.
	* When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant.		* When an RTI Application is made and signed by its Managing Director or Director or Secretary under official designation, without indicating the name of person, it is the #Company or #Association which is the applicant.
Line 218:		Line 149:

	[<>]		[<>]
		+

Information Commissioner Tenure and Salaries — the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and after

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 02:11:14 +0000

2026/04/20 06:27	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Information Commissioner Tenure and Salaries — the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and after ======
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI Amendment Act 2019, Information Commissioner tenure 2026, CIC salary 2026, Section 13 RTI Act, Section 15 RTI Act, Section 16 RTI Act, Central Government administrative control, Anjali Bhardwaj v Union, rti right to information india)
	+	metatag-description=(The current position on tenure, salary, and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at the Centre and in the States, as amended by the RTI Amendment Act, 2019.)}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? Until 2019, the Chief Information Commissioner drew a salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner — which was tied by statute to a Supreme Court Judge's salary. The 2019 amendment cut that link. The Central Government now fixes the salary by rule.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	In one line. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019, effective 24 October 2019) substituted Sections 13, 15, and 16 of the RTI Act, 2005. Tenure, salary, and service conditions of every Information Commissioner in India are now determined by the Central Government by rule, not by statute.
	+
	+	What that means in practice.
	+	* Tenure: Fixed term of three years (previously: until sixty-five years of age, or five-year term, whichever was earlier).
	+	* Salary: Fixed by the Central Government by rule — no longer statutorily linked to a Supreme Court or Election Commissioner's salary.
	+	* Service conditions: Central Government notifies allowances, leave, and other terms.
	+	* Scope: The amendment covers the Central Information Commission and every State Information Commission.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== What the Act said before 2019 =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005, as originally enacted, fixed the tenure, salary, and service conditions of Information Commissioners by statute:
	+
	+	* Central Chief Information Commissioner — tenure and salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner.
	+	* Central Information Commissioners — tenure and salary equal to Election Commissioners.
	+	* State Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners — pegged to the Central equivalents but with appropriate State-Government modifications.
	+
	+	The statutory link was deliberate. The drafters of 2005 tied Commissioners' status to constitutional officers so that their salary, pension, and service conditions could not be varied by executive rule. This was a protection for institutional independence.
	+
	+	Commissioner tenure under the pre-2019 Act was five years or age 65, whichever was earlier.
	+
	+	===== What the 2019 Amendment did =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 substituted the relevant sub-sections:
	+
	+	==== Section 13 — Central Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 13(2). Term of office and service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+	* Section 13(5). Salary, allowances, and other service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	==== Section 15 — State Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 15(4) and (5). Tenure and service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner — "as may be prescribed by the Central Government". (Note: Central Government, not the State Government.)
	+
	+	==== Section 16 — State Information Commissioners ====
	+
	+	* Section 16(2) and (5). Tenure and service conditions — again, "as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	Parliament supplemented the substituted statutory text with the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019 — commonly called the RTI Rules, 2019, notified on 24 October 2019.
	+
	+	Under the 2019 Rules:
	+
	+	* Tenure: Three years, or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier.
	+	* Salary (Central Chief Information Commissioner): Equivalent to a salary of a Secretary to the Government of India — not the former Chief Election Commissioner / Supreme Court Judge scale.
	+	* Salary (Central Information Commissioners): As notified under the 2019 Rules.
	+	* Salary (State Information Commissioners): Also fixed by the Central Rules.
	+	* Re-appointment: Not available — once the term expires, the officeholder demits office.
	+
	+	===== Why it matters =====
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was described by the Government as an exercise in administrative rationalisation — aligning tenure and pay of the Information Commissions with those of other statutory bodies. Critics, including a broad coalition of civil-society organisations and 120 Opposition Members of Parliament, argued that the amendment:
	+
	+	* Reduced the institutional independence of the Commissions by making their terms a matter of executive rule rather than Parliamentary statute.
	+	* Shortened tenure from five to three years, increasing turnover and reducing institutional memory.
	+	* Empowered the Central Government to fix even State Commissioners' terms, arguably encroaching on the federal scheme of the Act.
	+	* Removed the status parity with Election Commissioners, which had served as a reputational and functional anchor for the RTI regime.
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//. The Court declined to strike down the amendment but issued detailed directions on the process of appointments, emphasising the need for transparency, timely filling of vacancies, and publication of the reasons for selection. Those directions have become the anchoring framework for every subsequent appointment.
	+
	+	===== What the current position means for applicants =====
	+
	+	The tenure-and-salary changes do not alter the rights of an RTI applicant. The Act's substantive right under Section 3, the procedure under Sections 6 and 7, and the appeal ladder under Sections 19 and 20 are unchanged. What applicants notice, indirectly, is:
	+
	+	* Shorter tenures produce more transitions. New Commissioners, new hearing benches, and shifting panel compositions affect the pace of second appeals.
	+	* Pendency pressure. Three-year terms combined with long gaps between appointments contribute to the widely-cited pendency figures across the Central and State Commissions. See [[blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]] and the [[blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|decade-of-change essay]].
	+	* Uniform Central control means the service conditions of the Information Commissioner in your State are set by the Central Government, not by your State Government — a point worth knowing when correspondence about a delayed appeal reaches the State Secretariat.
	+
	+	===== Status as of April 2026 =====
	+
	+	The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 is in force. The RTI Rules, 2019 continue to govern tenure and salaries. The DPDP Rules, 2025 substitution of Section 8(1)(j) (see [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|the DPDP amendment analysis]]) operates on a different axis — it is about what can be disclosed, not who orders the disclosure. The two reforms are analytically distinct.
	+
	+	===== Related on this site =====
	+
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — current text, as amended]] — sections 12–17 carry overlays noting the 2019 amendment.
	+	* [[rules:start\|RTI Rules]].
	+	* [[rules:cic\|Central Information Commission regulations]].
	+	* [[blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
	+	* [[blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]].
	+	* [[important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
	+	* [[guide:guidelines-for-public-information-officer\|Guide for PIOs]].
	+	* [[guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|Guide for FAAs]].
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 13, 15, 16 (pre- and post-2019 text).
	+	- The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), notified 24 October 2019.
	+	- The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners) Rules, 2019.
	+	- //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//, Supreme Court of India, with subsequent directions on appointment transparency.
	+	- Parliamentary debates on the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed on =====
	+
	+	20 April 2026
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-amendment-2019 commissioner-tenure salary section-13 section-15 section-16 anjali-bhardwaj}}

Competent Authority under RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 15:28:01 +0000

2018/06/03 05:36		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Competent Authority under RTI Act ======		====== Competent Authority under RTI Act ======
-	{{tag>rti act,competent authority,interpretation}}{{like>}}	+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations competent authority rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Download RTI Act. Prescribed. The RTI Act, 2005. Severability. What is Information under RTI Act.)}}
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[act:languages\|Download RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:prescribed\|Prescribed]].
		+	* [[act:start\|The RTI Act, 2005]].
		+	* [[explanations:severability\|Severability]].
		+	* [[explanations:information\|What is Information under RTI Act]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti act competent authority interpretation}}{{like>}}
	{{ :explanations:authority-rti.jpg \|}}		{{ :explanations:authority-rti.jpg \|}}
	As per the [[act:\|RTI Act]], the competent authority is:		As per the [[act:\|RTI Act]], the competent authority is:
Line 14:		Line 27:

	This needs to be viewed through section 2(g) and section 28 which suggests that each competent authority is vested with rule making powers. Rules framed by a competent authority are applicable only to Public Authorities working under the control of the concerned competent authority. This rulemaking power of all competent authorities is not subjected to provisions of section 29. This apparently, is to respect the autonomy enjoyed by competent authorities other than those mentioned at 2(e)(iv).		This needs to be viewed through section 2(g) and section 28 which suggests that each competent authority is vested with rule making powers. Rules framed by a competent authority are applicable only to Public Authorities working under the control of the concerned competent authority. This rulemaking power of all competent authorities is not subjected to provisions of section 29. This apparently, is to respect the autonomy enjoyed by competent authorities other than those mentioned at 2(e)(iv).
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Rules can be made by the Speakers of the respective houses, the Chief Justices of the respective Courts, Governors of respective states and the President. The only specific task of the ‘competent authority’ discussed in Section 28 is the right to make rules mainly for fees and formats for appeals.		Rules can be made by the Speakers of the respective houses, the Chief Justices of the respective Courts, Governors of respective states and the President. The only specific task of the ‘competent authority’ discussed in Section 28 is the right to make rules mainly for fees and formats for appeals.
Line 32:		Line 34:

	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	[<>]		[<>]

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~

Composite Petition under RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 15:28:01 +0000

2020/07/13 03:33		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Composite Petition under RTI Act ======		====== Composite Petition under RTI Act ======
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations composite petition rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(If the petitioner has sought the required information under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 along with compensation under Section 19(8)(b)/ Section...)}}
		+
		+
	{{ :explanations:composite-application.png \|}}		{{ :explanations:composite-application.png \|}}
-	If the petitioner has sought the required information under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 along with compensation under Section 19(8)(b)/ Section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005 or any other provision of the RTI Act 2005 and also the penal action/disciplinary action against the erring officials under Section 20(1)/20(2) of the RTI Act 2005, in that case, this petition may be legally construed as	+	If the petitioner has sought the required [[explanations:information\|information]] under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 along with compensation under Section 19(8)(b)/ Section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005 or any other provision of the RTI Act 2005 and also the penal action/disciplinary action against the erring officials under Section 20(1)/20(2) of the RTI Act 2005, in that case, this petition may be legally construed as
	composite petition in the light of provisions of [[act:\|RTI Act 2005]].		composite petition in the light of provisions of [[act:\|RTI Act 2005]].

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	===== Delhi High Court Decision =====		===== Delhi High Court Decision =====
Line 33:		Line 25:


-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	"In other words, it may be stated here that the relief provided under section 19(8) (a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under Sub Clause (1) & Sub Clause (2) of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise."		"In other words, it may be stated here that the relief provided under section 19(8) (a)(v) of the RTI Act 2005, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under Sub Clause (1) & Sub Clause (2) of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise."
Line 51:		Line 32:
	In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act 2005 to file the composite petition, the composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.		In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act 2005 to file the composite petition, the composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Courtesy: [[https://rtiindia.org/profile/170788-rti-rajendran/\|RTI Rajendran]]		Courtesy: [[https://rtiindia.org/profile/170788-rti-rajendran/\|RTI Rajendran]]
Line 71:		Line 41:

	Download the Decisions of CIC on the composite petition.		Download the Decisions of CIC on the composite petition.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_000542___543___544___545.pdf \|}}		- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_000542___543___544___545.pdf \|}}
	- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_cic_ky_a_2015_000175_m_155699.pdf \|}}		- {{ :explanations:composite_petition_cic_ky_a_2015_000175_m_155699.pdf \|}}
Line 90:		Line 49:
	- {{ :explanations:composite_petitions_cic_ky_c_2015_000152_m_180880.pdf \|}}		- {{ :explanations:composite_petitions_cic_ky_c_2015_000152_m_180880.pdf \|}}

		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy\|What is Privacy under RTI]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

Deemed PIO

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:06:56 +0000

2018/06/03 05:36		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{keywords>pio,cpio,deemed pio}}		{{keywords>pio,cpio,deemed pio}}
	====== Deemed PIO ======		====== Deemed PIO ======
-	{{tag>Section-5, PIO}}	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. A deemed PIO under Section 5(4)/(5) is any officer whose assistance the PIO seeks to answer the RTI. They carry the same duties and penalty exposure as the designated PIO.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Assistance means the factual work — retrieving, collating, or drafting the reply.
		+	* The deemed PIO is personally liable under Section 20 for delay or mala fide refusal.
		+	* Officers cannot hide behind 'I am not the PIO' — the Section 5(4)/(5) liability is automatic.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{tag>section-5 pio}}
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}
-	Deemed Public Information Officer	+	Deemed Public [[explanations:information\|Information]] Officer

	As per Sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the [[act:\|Right to Information Act 2005]]		As per Sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the [[act:\|Right to Information Act 2005]]
Line 11:		Line 20:
	THe officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be for the purpose of contravention of the provisions of the Act.		THe officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be for the purpose of contravention of the provisions of the Act.
	===== Can CPIO designate another person as PIO =====		===== Can CPIO designate another person as PIO =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	The Act enables the PIO to seek assistance of any other officer to enable him to provide information to the information seeker, but it does not give him authority to designate any other officer as PIO and direct him to send reply to the applicant.		The Act enables the PIO to seek assistance of any other officer to enable him to provide information to the information seeker, but it does not give him authority to designate any other officer as PIO and direct him to send reply to the applicant.

	The PIO disposes his responsibility and liability in terms of his duties under the Act, as soon as he seeks the information from the relevant officers. The PIO should send a written note or email for the information required by a RTI application to an appropriate officer who has the relevant information. The PIO can even send this communication to a senior officer. This should be done within one or two days of receiving the RTI application. In that case, any failure or penal provisions would be attracted by the other officer, often called ‘deemed PIO’. It would be advisable for the head of the office to identify the deemed PIOs holding various categories of information, by an internal order. This would make it easy for the PIO to direct the queries to the right person and eliminate ambiguity.		The PIO disposes his responsibility and liability in terms of his duties under the Act, as soon as he seeks the information from the relevant officers. The PIO should send a written note or email for the information required by a RTI application to an appropriate officer who has the relevant information. The PIO can even send this communication to a senior officer. This should be done within one or two days of receiving the RTI application. In that case, any failure or penal provisions would be attracted by the other officer, often called ‘deemed PIO’. It would be advisable for the head of the office to identify the deemed PIOs holding various categories of information, by an internal order. This would make it easy for the PIO to direct the queries to the right person and eliminate ambiguity.

-	This provision envisages that not just the PIO but anybody or everybody who holds information has a duty to provide information under this Act. This is an important provision which underlines the responsibility of the entire Public Authority and all its officers to facilitate access to information to the citizen. If public authorities follow the provisions of Section 4 properly, it would be easy for the PIO to provide the information.	+	This provision envisages that not just the PIO but anybody or everybody who holds information has a duty to provide information under this Act. This is an important provision which underlines the responsibility of the entire [[explanations:public-authority\|Public Authority]] and all its officers to facilitate access to information to the citizen. If public authorities follow the provisions of Section 4 properly, it would be easy for the PIO to provide the information.
	===== What procedure to follow in case of deemed PIO =====		===== What procedure to follow in case of deemed PIO =====

	The import of sub-section (5) of section 5 is that, if the officer whose assistance is sought by the PIO, does not render necessary help to him, the Information Commission may impose penalty on such officer or recommend disciplinary action against him the same way as the may impose penalty on or recommend disciplinary action against the PIO.(({{:explanations:deemed-cpio.pdf\|CIC OM No: 1/14/2008-IR dated 28th July 2008 titled: Clarifications regarding Sub-Section (4) and (5) of the Right to Information Act 2005}}))		The import of sub-section (5) of section 5 is that, if the officer whose assistance is sought by the PIO, does not render necessary help to him, the Information Commission may impose penalty on such officer or recommend disciplinary action against him the same way as the may impose penalty on or recommend disciplinary action against the PIO.(({{:explanations:deemed-cpio.pdf\|CIC OM No: 1/14/2008-IR dated 28th July 2008 titled: Clarifications regarding Sub-Section (4) and (5) of the Right to Information Act 2005}}))
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	----		----
	==== More Common terms under RTI ====		==== More Common terms under RTI ====

Disproportionate Diversion of Resources

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:46:46 +0000

2018/06/03 05:36		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Disproportionate Diversion of Resources ======		====== Disproportionate Diversion of Resources ======
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations disproportionate diversion resources rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 7(9) lets the PIO provide information in a form other than asked if doing so would disproportionately divert the authority's resources. It is not a ground to refuse.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Section 7(9) is about form, not refusal — the information is still due.
		+	* Offering inspection of files instead of copies is a common Section 7(9) remedy.
		+	* 'Disproportionate' is judged against the public authority's normal workload, not a fixed threshold.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}
	Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005		Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005
Line 6:		Line 19:
	Section 7 (9) of RTI Act 2005 reads as under**:		Section 7 (9) of RTI Act 2005 reads as under**:

-	“An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”	+	“An [[explanations:information\|information]] shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	In following cases it has been decided by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI that Section 7(9) of the Act does not provide ground for denial of information.		In following cases it has been decided by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI that Section 7(9) of the Act does not provide ground for denial of information.
Line 36:		Line 38:

	4. Decision dated 26.3.2008 in appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00349		4. Decision dated 26.3.2008 in appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00349
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	“..It was explained to respondents that section 7(9) does not authorize refusal of information but only disclosure in a form other than that asked for, for reasons given ion that Section..”		“..It was explained to respondents that section 7(9) does not authorize refusal of information but only disclosure in a form other than that asked for, for reasons given ion that Section..”

	5. Decision dated 9.1.2009 in appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2008/01256		5. Decision dated 9.1.2009 in appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2008/01256
-	“…The denial of information on the basis of Section 11 and Section 7 (9) of the Act was without any basis in law. Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9. Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a third party to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9)…”	+	“…The denial of information on the basis of Section 11 and Section 7 (9) of the Act was without any basis in law. Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9. Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9)…”
	**		**
	6. Decision dated 22.10.08 in Appeal No. CIC/WB /A/2007/00528-SM**		6. Decision dated 22.10.08 in Appeal No. CIC/WB /A/2007/00528-SM**
Line 61:		Line 52:

	Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9.		Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9.
-	Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a third party to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9). Besides the queries do not lend themselves at all to using Section 11 or Section 7 (9). The PIO is directed to give the information to the appellant. He is also warned that denying information in this casual manner will invoke the penal provisions of Section 20 of the Act.	+	Section 11 sets out a procedure for giving the opportunity to a third party to give his objections and Section 7 (9) can be invoked only to state that information in the format demanded by the appellant is not possible. However, the PIO would have to offer the information in an alternate format when invoking Section 7 (9). Besides the queries do not lend themselves at all to using Section 11 or Section 7 (9). The PIO is directed to give the information to the appellant. He is also warned that denying information in this casual manner will invoke the penal provisions of Section 20 of the Act.
	_____________________________________________________		_____________________________________________________


-	**8. Extract from judgement dated 07-01-2010 of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and	+	8. Extract from the** judgement dated 07-01-2010 of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and
	M.P.NO.1 OF 2009**		M.P.NO.1 OF 2009**

	Available at http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=22544		Available at http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=22544

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	“13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”		“13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”

Line 106:		Line 86:
	_______________________________________________________		_______________________________________________________

-	NOTE: Despite Office Memorandum N0.12/9/2009-IR dated 24-05-2010 of Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, PIO cannot refuse information. He has to provide it in the form in which it is available. DoPT cannot amend RTI Act 2005.	+	NOTE: Despite Office Memorandum N0.12/9/2009-IR dated 24-05-2010 of Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, PIO cannot refuse information. He has to provide it in the form in which it is available. %%DoPT%% cannot amend RTI Act 2005.

	====== Gist ======		====== Gist ======
Line 112:		Line 92:

	Thus section 7.9 relates to only form in which information has to be supplied. If supplying information in form requested by applicant does not disproportionately divert resources of public authority, then information has to be supplied in the requested form only. However if there is disproportionate diversion of resources to supply in requested form, then information has to be supplied in the form it is available without changing the form. PIO will have to justify how there is disproportionate diversion of resources in changing form from existing form to requested form.		Thus section 7.9 relates to only form in which information has to be supplied. If supplying information in form requested by applicant does not disproportionately divert resources of public authority, then information has to be supplied in the requested form only. However if there is disproportionate diversion of resources to supply in requested form, then information has to be supplied in the form it is available without changing the form. PIO will have to justify how there is disproportionate diversion of resources in changing form from existing form to requested form.
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
-	For example, if applicant has desired information in CD form and public authority is holding information in hard copies only, then CPIO has to supply in CD form, if there is no disproportionate diversion of resources. However if large number of papers are to be scanned which may require huge resources [say by way of man power etc] then PIO can supply in hard copies only and not in CD.

-	Disproportionate diversion of resources can always be disputed by applicant by factoring probable expenditure in changing form and total annual administrative expenditure of public authority.	+	For example, if the applicant has desired information in CD form and public authority is holding information in hard copies only, then CPIO has to supply in CD form, if there is no disproportionate diversion of resources. However, if large number of papers are to be scanned which may require huge resources [say by way of manpower etc] then PIO can supply in hard copies only and not in CD.
		+
		+	Disproportionate diversion of resources can always be disputed by the applicant by factoring probable expenditure in changing form and total annual administrative expenditure of public authority.

	Please also peruse:		Please also peruse:
Line 133:		Line 102:


-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{:important-decisions:court-case-laws:treesa-irish-vs-the-central-public-information-...-on-30-august-2010.pdf\|TREESA IRISH vs. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER [WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006]}}		{{:important-decisions:court-case-laws:treesa-irish-vs-the-central-public-information-...-on-30-august-2010.pdf\|TREESA IRISH vs. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER [WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006]}}

Line 153:		Line 110:

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

What is Fiduciary Relationship

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:14:58 +0000

2018/06/03 06:56		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== What is Fiduciary Relationship ======		====== What is Fiduciary Relationship ======
-	{{:explanations:fiduciary-relationship-rti.jpg\| }}	+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations fiduciary relationship rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(A fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 8(1)(e) protects information held in a fiduciary relationship — but the Supreme Court has read this narrowly, especially after //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016).
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* A fiduciary relationship requires trust + a duty to act in the other's interest.
		+	* Regulator/regulated, employer/employee, or data-handler/data-subject are not automatically fiduciary.
		+	* The PIO must identify the specific fiduciary duty, not merely use the label.
		+	* On appeal, Section 8(2) public-interest override often defeats a weak 8(1)(e) claim.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+	{{:explanations:fiduciary-relationship-rti.jpg?424x283\| }}
	A fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship.” “Fiduciary relationship usually arises in one of the four situations:		A fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship.” “Fiduciary relationship usually arises in one of the four situations:
	(1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first,		(1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first,
Line 9:		Line 25:
	The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, banker, financial analyst or trustee.		The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, banker, financial analyst or trustee.

-	Another characteristic of such a relationship is that the information is given by the holder of information out of choice. When a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to a particular doctor he has a choice whether he wishes to give the information. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his benefit. It is true that such a relationship is based on trust. A person will not choose a doctor, lawyer, banker or trustee unless there is trust. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in the discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license or passport, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In such a situation, it cannot be claimed that the information has been given in a fiduciary relationship.	+	Another characteristic of such a relationship is that the [[explanations:information\|information]] is given by the holder of information out of choice. When a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to a particular doctor he has a choice whether he wishes to give the information. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his benefit. It is true that such a relationship is based on trust. A person will not choose a doctor, lawyer, banker or trustee unless there is trust. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in the discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license or passport, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In such a situation, it cannot be claimed that the information has been given in a fiduciary relationship.

	Another aspect to be taken into account is that information provided by the beneficiary to a fiduciary is held in trust and cannot be shared with anyone, but the reverse is not true. A doctor is not free to discuss a patient’s information without the patient ’s consent, but there is no such binding on the patient sharing the doctor’s advice or medication.		Another aspect to be taken into account is that information provided by the beneficiary to a fiduciary is held in trust and cannot be shared with anyone, but the reverse is not true. A doctor is not free to discuss a patient’s information without the patient ’s consent, but there is no such binding on the patient sharing the doctor’s advice or medication.
Line 16:		Line 32:

	Fiduciary Relationship although arises out of a transaction involving trust between two parties, it requires something more than mere trust to make the relationship fiduciary.		Fiduciary Relationship although arises out of a transaction involving trust between two parties, it requires something more than mere trust to make the relationship fiduciary.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	It also cannot be equated with mere [[explanations:privacy\|privacy]] or confidentiality ((reference IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	It also cannot be equated with mere privacy or confidentiality ((reference IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010	+

	Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI).)) At the heart of fiduciary relationship lie reliance, de facto control and dominance. A fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other. The Canadian Courts have developed the following tests for determining whether the fiduciary relationship has been established, viz.		Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI).)) At the heart of fiduciary relationship lie reliance, de facto control and dominance. A fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed on one side and there is resulting superiority and influence on the other. The Canadian Courts have developed the following tests for determining whether the fiduciary relationship has been established, viz.
Line 44:		Line 49:

	===== The third party can invoke the protection of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act. =====		===== The third party can invoke the protection of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI act. =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+


	A fiduciary relationship ((IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010 Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI))) is one where the key element is that the relationship is principally characterized by trust and the information is given for use only for the benefit of the giver. The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship (([[http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-10072009-07.pdf\|Rakhi Gupta v. Jt. Director & PIO, National Institute of Open Schooling, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001343/4053]]))		A fiduciary relationship ((IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P. (C) No. 6532 of 2006 (C) Decided On: 30.08.2010 Appellants: Treesa Irish W/o Milton Lopez Vs.Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer, The Appellate Authority, The Central Information Commission and Union of India (UOI))) is one where the key element is that the relationship is principally characterized by trust and the information is given for use only for the benefit of the giver. The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship (([[http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-10072009-07.pdf\|Rakhi Gupta v. Jt. Director & PIO, National Institute of Open Schooling, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001343/4053]]))

-	In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g., financial analyst or trustee. In the case citation here: {{:explanations:sg-27022009-11.pdf\|Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision}} the CIC noted that "a key element of the relationship between the applicant for a water connection and the Delhi Jal Board certainly cannot be said to be primarily of trust by the applicant in the Public authority, nor can it be said that the information was given for the benefit of the giver. The information was provided to get an authorization for a water connection." ((MANOJ B. PATEL Blog Post titled [[http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/manoj-b-patel/4638-fiduciary-relationship.html\|Fiduciary Relationship]]))	+	In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g., financial analyst or trustee. In the case citation here: {{:explanations:sg-27022009-11.pdf\|Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. PIO, Delhi Jal Board Decision}} the CIC noted that "a key element of the relationship between the applicant for a water connection and the Delhi Jal Board certainly cannot be said to be primarily of trust by the applicant in the [[explanations:public-authority\|Public authority]], nor can it be said that the information was given for the benefit of the giver. The information was provided to get an authorization for a water connection." ((MANOJ B. PATEL Blog Post titled [[http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/manoj-b-patel/4638-fiduciary-relationship.html\|Fiduciary Relationship]]))
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	==== RTI Act and Fiduciary Relationship ====		==== RTI Act and Fiduciary Relationship ====

Line 86:		Line 69:

	==== More Common terms under RTI ====		==== More Common terms under RTI ====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

Line 103:		Line 75:

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

File Notings under RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:45:23 +0000

2018/06/03 05:37		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{keywords>file notings}}		{{keywords>file notings}}
	====== File Notings under RTI Act ======		====== File Notings under RTI Act ======
-	{{tag>file-notings,disclosures}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations file notings rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(As per DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 2009((: Disclosure of 'file noting' under the Right to Information Act, 2005.)), file noting can be disclosed except file noting...)}}
		+
		+
		+	{{tag>file-notings disclosures}}
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}


-	As per DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 2009(({{:explanations:file-noting-disclosure-rti.pdf\|DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 2009}}: Disclosure of 'file noting' under the Right to Information Act, 2005.)), file noting can be disclosed except file noting containing information exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act.	+	As per DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 2009(({{:explanations:file-noting-disclosure-rti.pdf\|DOPT OM Dated 23rd June 2009}}: Disclosure of 'file noting' under the Right to [[explanations:information\|Information]] Act, 2005.)), file noting can be disclosed except file noting containing information exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act.

	Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act defines 'information’ which includes ‘record'. Section 2(i)(a) states that a 'record' includes any document, manuscript and file. The operative definition of a 'file' is given in the Manual of Office Procedure prepared by the Central Secretariat, Government of India. The definition of 'file' in the Manual includes 'notes' and 'appendices to notes'.		Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act defines 'information’ which includes ‘record'. Section 2(i)(a) states that a 'record' includes any document, manuscript and file. The operative definition of a 'file' is given in the Manual of Office Procedure prepared by the Central Secretariat, Government of India. The definition of 'file' in the Manual includes 'notes' and 'appendices to notes'.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	In Central Information Commission(CIC) Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, the CIC held that “file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure”.		In Central Information Commission(CIC) Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, the CIC held that “file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure”.

Line 25:		Line 18:

	{(rater>id=1\|name=File Notings under RTI\|type=rate)}		{(rater>id=1\|name=File Notings under RTI\|type=rate)}
-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~

Grounds for Rejection

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:17:29 +0000

2018/06/05 01:21		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Grounds for Rejection ======		====== Grounds for Rejection ======
-	{{tag>Rejection,exemption,act}}	+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations grounds for rejection rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(It must be clearly understood that giving information to the citizens must be the rule; and denying it an exception.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? Section 8(1) has exactly ten grounds for refusal. Not nine, not eleven. Any denial using a ground outside those ten is appealable on the face of the order.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Information can be withheld only on one of the ten grounds set out in Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, together with Section 9, Section 11, or Section 24. No other reason is a valid ground of rejection.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* A refusal must cite the specific clause. A bare statement that disclosure "is not in the public interest" is not a valid refusal by itself. The public interest balancing in Section 8(2) may be invoked to order disclosure in spite of an exemption, but it is not itself a ground to refuse.
		+	* A partial refusal must be accompanied by the part of the record that can be released. Section 10 of the Act requires the Public Information Officer to sever and release the non-exempt part.
		+	* Section 8(1)(j) has been amended on 14 November 2025 by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public interest override that used to sit within clause (j) has been removed. The override now operates through Section 8(2). See [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+	* If the refusal is unreasoned or appears to be made on a ground outside Section 8, a first appeal under Section 19(1) is available within thirty days.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	New to RTI? Start with the three most-used guides on this site:
		+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]].
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected — and How to Avoid It]].
		+	* [[:faq\|FAQ — twenty-five most-asked RTI questions]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	Already got a refusal? See [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected in India — and How to Avoid It]]. The top five drafting mistakes and the exact fix for each, with bad-versus-good examples and the appeal path under Sections 19(1) and 19(3).
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{tag>rejection exemption act}}
	{{ :explanations:rejection.jpg \|}}		{{ :explanations:rejection.jpg \|}}
-	It must be clearly understood that giving information to the citizens must be the rule; and denying it an exception. The constitutional basis for this is that Right to Information has been considered to be inherent to Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the denial also has to be as per the limits laid down by Article 19(2) which states:” (2) nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”	+	It must be clearly understood that giving [[explanations:information\|information]] to the citizens must be the rule; and denying it an exception. The constitutional basis for this is that Right to Information has been considered to be inherent to Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the denial also has to be as per the limits laid down by Article 19(2) which states:” (2) nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Grounds of Rejection of RTI		Grounds of Rejection of RTI
	There are only three possible grounds on which information can be denied:		There are only three possible grounds on which information can be denied:
-	* The organisation is not a Public authority - eg. a Cooperative Society, or a Private corporate or Institution, not substantially financed or controlled by the Government.	+	* The organisation is not a [[explanations:public-authority\|Public authority]] - eg. a Cooperative Society, or a Private corporate or Institution, not [[explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] or controlled by the Government.
	* What is asked for ‘not information’ as defined under the Act: Information has to exist. Interpretations of law or decisions which do not exist, or reasons for decisions which do not exist will not be covered under the definition of ‘information’		* What is asked for ‘not information’ as defined under the Act: Information has to exist. Interpretations of law or decisions which do not exist, or reasons for decisions which do not exist will not be covered under the definition of ‘information’
	===== Some examples to explain the above: =====		===== Some examples to explain the above: =====
Line 30:		Line 55:
	* If the form in which the applicant has asked for information would require too much time of the Public authority, it may offer it in another format. A common practice adopted by PIOs when the information gathering or collating in a particular format would require excessive time is to offer inspection of files to the applicant.		* If the form in which the applicant has asked for information would require too much time of the Public authority, it may offer it in another format. A common practice adopted by PIOs when the information gathering or collating in a particular format would require excessive time is to offer inspection of files to the applicant.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	Section 7(9) cannot be a ground for denial of information, which is available on records. Denial can only be justified on the basis of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The only exception to this is if giving any information would violate the provisions of the Constitution, in which case, the request for information, can be denied.		Section 7(9) cannot be a ground for denial of information, which is available on records. Denial can only be justified on the basis of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The only exception to this is if giving any information would violate the provisions of the Constitution, in which case, the request for information, can be denied.

	There may be certain rare instances in which providing information sought by an applicant could bring a work by the public authorities to a halt. In such a case, Section 7(9) may be used to deny information. For example, if someone sought information that is spread over fifty offices which is not available in a collated form, a PIO could say that even providing an inspection may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. On the other hand, if collation of the information can be done in a couple of hours, the PIO should do this.		There may be certain rare instances in which providing information sought by an applicant could bring a work by the public authorities to a halt. In such a case, Section 7(9) may be used to deny information. For example, if someone sought information that is spread over fifty offices which is not available in a collated form, a PIO could say that even providing an inspection may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. On the other hand, if collation of the information can be done in a couple of hours, the PIO should do this.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	However, it would be wrong to refuse to provide a collation or extracts from what is already in records. Section 7(9) should only be invoked when collation or extracting information is going to take too much time. In such an event, the PIO could offer photocopies of the complete records or allow an inspection. The choice should rest with the applicant.		However, it would be wrong to refuse to provide a collation or extracts from what is already in records. Section 7(9) should only be invoked when collation or extracting information is going to take too much time. In such an event, the PIO could offer photocopies of the complete records or allow an inspection. The choice should rest with the applicant.

	===== Denial of Information under Section 8 =====		===== Denial of Information under Section 8 =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	//(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;//		//(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;//

Line 85:		Line 77:

	//(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;//		//(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;//
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	This will primarily apply where there is a legal stipulation to present some information like a report to Parliament or the Legislature. This provision will also apply when a specific order has been given by the Legislature to avoid disclosing some information in public domain or to prohibit some proceedings of the Parliament or Legislature from being made public.		This will primarily apply where there is a legal stipulation to present some information like a report to Parliament or the Legislature. This provision will also apply when a specific order has been given by the Legislature to avoid disclosing some information in public domain or to prohibit some proceedings of the Parliament or Legislature from being made public.

Line 109:		Line 90:
	----		----

-	//(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//	+	//(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a [[explanations:third-party\|third party]], unless the [[explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]] is satisfied that larger [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] warrants the disclosure of such information;//

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	To qualify for this exemption, it must be established that it is ‘commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property’. Most importantly, it must be shown that the disclosure would ‘harm the competitive position of a third party’. This would mean if particular information is given by the ‘third party’ which can be identified as a trade secret or commercial confidence and its disclosure would harm its competitive position, then such information could be denied to the applicant. This section does not envisage denial of information such as tender bids, specifications or guarantees are given by bidders to the public authorities. The PIO must examine and ensure whether information denied qualifies this test of damage to third parties likely to be caused by disclosure.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	To qualify for this exemption, it must be established that it is ‘commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property’. Most importantly, it must be shown that the disclosure would ‘harm the competitive position of a third party’. This would mean if particular information is given by the ‘third party’ which can be identified as a trade secret or commercial confidence and its disclosure would harm its competitive position, then such information could be denied to the applicant. This section does not envisage denial of information such as tender bids, specifications or guarantees are given by bidders to the public authorities. The PIO must examine and ensure whether information denied qualifies this test of damage to third party likely to be caused by disclosure.	+

	As an example, if a Company is negotiating with some other customers for some orders and discloses this to the Public authority, it may be claimed that it is information given in commercial confidence and disclosing this information could damage its competitive position. Similarly, if a formula/ formulation is disclosed by a company, its disclosure could be exempted since disclosure could harm its competitive position. If there is no possibility of competition, the exemption cannot be claimed under this clause.		As an example, if a Company is negotiating with some other customers for some orders and discloses this to the Public authority, it may be claimed that it is information given in commercial confidence and disclosing this information could damage its competitive position. Similarly, if a formula/ formulation is disclosed by a company, its disclosure could be exempted since disclosure could harm its competitive position. If there is no possibility of competition, the exemption cannot be claimed under this clause.
Line 130:		Line 100:


-	//(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//	+	//(e) information available to a person in his [[explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|fiduciary relationship]], unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
	The fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship.” “Fiduciary relationship usually arises in one of the four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or		The fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship.” “Fiduciary relationship usually arises in one of the four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or

Line 157:		Line 116:
	//(f) information received in confidence from foreign government;//		//(f) information received in confidence from foreign government;//

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	It is likely that this provision could be used to refuse most information provided by a foreign Government unless it has been released in the Public domain. Effectively, this means that most information received from a foreign government is unlikely to be given. This is the only provision where the mere claim of information having been received in confidence has been given exemption in this law.		It is likely that this provision could be used to refuse most information provided by a foreign Government unless it has been released in the Public domain. Effectively, this means that most information received from a foreign government is unlikely to be given. This is the only provision where the mere claim of information having been received in confidence has been given exemption in this law.

Line 181:		Line 129:
	//(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;//		//(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;//

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	Under this provision, information can be denied if one of the following conditions is satisfied:		Under this provision, information can be denied if one of the following conditions is satisfied:
	- The investigation is not complete, and it can be shown that releasing the information could impede the process of investigation. This provision does not say that when an investigation is ongoing, information regarding it should not be provided. Hence, the PIO must consider whether there is a reasonable probability of the investigation being impeded if the information is provided. Similarly, when an investigation report is already submitted, it cannot be claimed that the process of investigation will be impeded. After this, only if there is any probability of somebody being apprehended or prosecuted, then it has to be established that the apprehension or prosecution will be impeded.		- The investigation is not complete, and it can be shown that releasing the information could impede the process of investigation. This provision does not say that when an investigation is ongoing, information regarding it should not be provided. Hence, the PIO must consider whether there is a reasonable probability of the investigation being impeded if the information is provided. Similarly, when an investigation report is already submitted, it cannot be claimed that the process of investigation will be impeded. After this, only if there is any probability of somebody being apprehended or prosecuted, then it has to be established that the apprehension or prosecution will be impeded.
Line 202:		Line 139:
	(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers://Italic Text//		(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers://Italic Text//

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	This provision is often misunderstood as being a complete bar on providing information under Right to Information about cabinet papers and the cabinet deliberations. Once a decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, it places an obligation on the government to make public the material on the basis of which the decision has been taken. This means that the government must make the basis of taking the decisions public on its own. For example, once a bill is presented in Parliament or Legislature, the matter relating to the purpose of the deliberations and cabinet related [[explanations:file-notings\|file notings]] is clearly complete and over.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	This provision is often misunderstood as being a complete bar on providing information under Right to Information about cabinet papers and the cabinet deliberations. Once a decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, it places an obligation on the government to make public the material on the basis of which the decision has been taken. This means that the government must make the basis of taking the decisions public on its own. For example, once a bill is presented in Parliament or Legislature, the matter relating to the purpose of the deliberations and cabinet related file notings is clearly complete and over.	+

	This provision requires that the government places before people it's deliberations and reasoning for deciding to frame a law or policy. This provision reiterates the provisions of Section 4(1):		This provision requires that the government places before people it's deliberations and reasoning for deciding to frame a law or policy. This provision reiterates the provisions of Section 4(1):
Line 225:		Line 151:
	----		----

-	//**(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:	+	//(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the [[explanations:**privacy\|privacy]] of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
	Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.**//		Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.**//

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	To qualify for this exemption, it must be personal information. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a corporate. Therefore, it suggests that 'personal' cannot be related to institutions, organizations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)		To qualify for this exemption, it must be personal information. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a corporate. Therefore, it suggests that 'personal' cannot be related to institutions, organizations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)
	(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporates.		(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporates.
Line 246:		Line 161:
	a) Where the information requested is personal information and the nature of the information requested is such that it has apparently no relationship to any public activity or interest; or		a) Where the information requested is personal information and the nature of the information requested is such that it has apparently no relationship to any public activity or interest; or

-	b) Where the information requested is personal information, and the disclosure of the said information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.	+	b) Where the information requested is personal information, and the disclosure of the said information would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

-	If the information is personal information, it must be seen whether the information came to the public authority as a consequence of a public activity. Generally, most of the information in public records arises from a public activity.	+	If the information is personal information, it must be seen whether the information came to the public authority as a consequence of a public activity. Generally, most of the information in public records arises from public activity.


Line 260:		Line 175:
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
	<WRAP half column>		<WRAP half column>
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<!-- wiki 300 bottom -->	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4562457588"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
	Privacy is to do with matters within a home, a person’s body, sexual preferences etc. This is in line with Article 19 (2) which mentions placing restrictions on Article 19		Privacy is to do with matters within a home, a person’s body, sexual preferences etc. This is in line with Article 19 (2) which mentions placing restrictions on Article 19

-	(1) (a) in the interest of ‘decency or morality’. There is an additional view at this juncture.38 If, however, it is felt that the information is not the result of any public activity, or disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual, before denying information it must be subjected to the acid test of the proviso: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.	+	(1) (a) in the interest of ‘decency or morality’. There is an additional view at this juncture.38 If, however, it is felt that the information is not the result of any public activity, or disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual, before denying information it must be subjected to the acid test of the proviso: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

	The proviso is meant as a test which must be applied before denying information claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j). Public servants have been used to answering questions raised in Parliament and the Legislature. It is difficult for them to develop the attitude of answering demands for information from citizens. Hence, when they have a doubt, it is worthwhile for them to first consider if they would give this information to the elected representatives. They must first come to the subjective conclusion that they would not provide the information to MPs and MLAs, and record it when denying information to citizens. There is an additional view at this juncture		The proviso is meant as a test which must be applied before denying information claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j). Public servants have been used to answering questions raised in Parliament and the Legislature. It is difficult for them to develop the attitude of answering demands for information from citizens. Hence, when they have a doubt, it is worthwhile for them to first consider if they would give this information to the elected representatives. They must first come to the subjective conclusion that they would not provide the information to MPs and MLAs, and record it when denying information to citizens. There is an additional view at this juncture
-	Another perspective is that information is to be denied to citizens based on the presumption that disclosure would cause harm to some interest of an individual. If, however, the information can be given to legislature it means the likely harm is not very high since what is given to legislature will be in public domain. Hence, it is necessary that when information is denied based on the provision of Section 8 (1) (j), the person denying the information must give his subjective assessment that such information would be denied to Parliament or State legislature if sought. This must be recorded in the decision.	+	Another perspective is that information is to be denied to citizens based on the presumption that disclosure would cause harm to some interest of an individual. If, however, the information can be given to the legislature it means the likely harm is not very high since what is given to legislature will be in public domain. Hence, it is necessary that when information is denied based on the provision of Section 8 (1) (j), the person denying the information must give his subjective assessment that such information would be denied to Parliament or State legislature if sought. This must be recorded in the decision.

	It is worth noting that in the Privacy bill 2014, it was proposed that Sensitive personal data should be defined as Personal data relating to: “(a) physical and mental health including medical history, (b) biometric, bodily or genetic information, (c) criminal convictions (d) password,		It is worth noting that in the Privacy bill 2014, it was proposed that Sensitive personal data should be defined as Personal data relating to: “(a) physical and mental health including medical history, (b) biometric, bodily or genetic information, (c) criminal convictions (d) password,
Line 290:		Line 195:
	**//Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.//		**//Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.//
	**		**
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	If an applicant asks copies of a book in a library, or a work of art, or a film, whose copyright vests with somebody, then it would not be given.		If an applicant asks copies of a book in a library, or a work of art, or a film, whose copyright vests with somebody, then it would not be given.
Line 311:		Line 205:

	{{indexmenu>:explanations#2}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#2}}
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
	[<>]		[<>]
		+

What is Information under RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:06:56 +0000

2018/06/03 05:37		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== What is Information under RTI Act ======		====== What is Information under RTI Act ======

-	{{tag>information, explanation, rti act}}{{like>}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations information rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Download RTI Act. Prescribed. Competent Authority under RTI Act. The RTI Act, 2005. Severability.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 2(f) defines 'information' expansively — any material in any form held by or under the control of a public authority. It covers physical and electronic records.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Includes records, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, contracts, reports, samples, and data in electronic form.
		+	* Does not include information that a public authority does not already hold (the Act does not create a duty to generate new records).
		+	* File notings are information — the Supreme Court settled this in //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011).
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[act:languages\|Download RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:prescribed\|Prescribed]].
		+	* [[explanations:competent-authority\|Competent Authority under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[act:start\|The RTI Act, 2005]].
		+	* [[explanations:severability\|Severability]].
		+
		+	{{tag>information explanation rti act}}{{like>}}
	As per the [[act:\|RT Act, Section 2(f)]] “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;		As per the [[act:\|RT Act, Section 2(f)]] “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
	{{ :explanations:rti-information.jpg \|}}		{{ :explanations:rti-information.jpg \|}}
Line 11:		Line 35:
	– records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, reports, samples, models - are merely meant to illustrate the broad scope. Clearly, file-noting is opinion and hence covered in the ambit of the Act. Legal or other opinions obtained by Public authority or various reports received by them are all covered.		– records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, reports, samples, models - are merely meant to illustrate the broad scope. Clearly, file-noting is opinion and hence covered in the ambit of the Act. Legal or other opinions obtained by Public authority or various reports received by them are all covered.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Here, it suggests an important principle regarding private bodies. Information relating to any private body, which may not be covered by the definition of ‘Public Authority’ (given in Section 2 h), can be obtained through a public authority if the law allows the public authority to access it.		Here, it suggests an important principle regarding private bodies. Information relating to any private body, which may not be covered by the definition of ‘Public Authority’ (given in Section 2 h), can be obtained through a public authority if the law allows the public authority to access it.
Line 30:		Line 43:
	Thus, if any public authority has the right to ask for any information under the law from a private organization, the citizen can seek the information from the public authority.		Thus, if any public authority has the right to ask for any information under the law from a private organization, the citizen can seek the information from the public authority.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	===== Seeking Information from Private Organisation =====		===== Seeking Information from Private Organisation =====

Line 54:		Line 56:
	There is some ambiguity on the term ‘accessed’. It may mean any information which the authority can ask for under various provisions or the information which the authority is usually supposed to acquire under the law. There is an additional view at this juncture.((8 Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) contends that it cannot extend to any information which an investigatory authority (e.g. the police) might in pursuance of an investigation ask for. And yet it must extend beyond information already held (or supposed to be held) by the public authority. It covers information which an authority may at any time (i.e. not just in special cases covered by an investigation) ask for from a private body. E.g. a broadcast regulator might have the power to ask a broadcaster for its ownership structure, not because it is investigating but just to check.))		There is some ambiguity on the term ‘accessed’. It may mean any information which the authority can ask for under various provisions or the information which the authority is usually supposed to acquire under the law. There is an additional view at this juncture.((8 Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) contends that it cannot extend to any information which an investigatory authority (e.g. the police) might in pursuance of an investigation ask for. And yet it must extend beyond information already held (or supposed to be held) by the public authority. It covers information which an authority may at any time (i.e. not just in special cases covered by an investigation) ask for from a private body. E.g. a broadcast regulator might have the power to ask a broadcaster for its ownership structure, not because it is investigating but just to check.))

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	As an example: The Labour office requires certain information to be submitted at certain intervals – this is ‘Information’ as defined by the Act, and hence can be accessed. However, the labour office during an inspection or investigation, can access virtually all the records of an organisation which otherwise would not be done.		As an example: The Labour office requires certain information to be submitted at certain intervals – this is ‘Information’ as defined by the Act, and hence can be accessed. However, the labour office during an inspection or investigation, can access virtually all the records of an organisation which otherwise would not be done.
Line 73:		Line 64:
	However, all information with the Public authority is certainly information covered by the Right to Information Act. The Public authority holds the information on behalf of citizens. Thus, once any information is with a Public authority, it is ‘information’ available to any citizen under the Right to Information Act (subject to the exemptions of Section 8 of the Act). Repeatedly, the Act implicitly recognizes that the Government holds all information on behalf of the citizen.		However, all information with the Public authority is certainly information covered by the Right to Information Act. The Public authority holds the information on behalf of citizens. Thus, once any information is with a Public authority, it is ‘information’ available to any citizen under the Right to Information Act (subject to the exemptions of Section 8 of the Act). Repeatedly, the Act implicitly recognizes that the Government holds all information on behalf of the citizen.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Often, some Right to Information Act users expect an explanation or answer even if there is nothing on records available. This cannot be tenable. RTI is not Right to Interrogat. The information has to exist in the material form.		Often, some Right to Information Act users expect an explanation or answer even if there is nothing on records available. This cannot be tenable. RTI is not Right to Interrogat. The information has to exist in the material form.
Line 90:		Line 70:
	Often officials refuse to give information when a Right to Information request is framed as a question. This position has no basis in the law.		Often officials refuse to give information when a Right to Information request is framed as a question. This position has no basis in the law.

-	As an example, if an applicant asks: “What is the name of the Head of the Department?” or “What is the expenditure incurred on medical expenses in 2014 by the Organisation?” This is information available on record. However, if an applicant asks: “Why has the Municipal Corporation not repaired and maintained all roads?” or “What is the meaning of a certain rule?” or “Why was the judgment not given in my favour” etc., it must be noted whether such information exists on record. If it exists on the records it should be provided and if not, then the answer provided should be “There is no record of this”.	+	As an example, if an applicant asks: “What is the name of the Head of the Department?” or “What is the expenditure incurred on medical expenses in 2014 by the Organisation?” This is information available on record. However, if an applicant asks: “Why has the Municipal Corporation not repaired and maintained all roads?” or “What is the meaning of a certain rule?” or “Why was the judgment not given in my favour” etc., it must be noted whether such information exists on record. If it exists on the records it should be provided and if not, then the answer provided should be “There is no record of this”.

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
	===== Credits: =====		===== Credits: =====

Line 110:		Line 79:
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	[<>]		[<>]

	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+

Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:45:23 +0000

2018/06/03 05:37		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI ======		====== Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI ======
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations investigation under rti rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Division Bench of this Commission in Shri Gobind Jha Vs Army Hqrs. ((CIC/AT/A/2006/ 00039 dated 1.6.2006)) while examining the applicability of the provisions...)}}
		+

	Division Bench of this Commission in Shri Gobind Jha Vs Army Hqrs.		Division Bench of this Commission in Shri Gobind Jha Vs Army Hqrs.
Line 5:		Line 9:
	while examining the applicability of the provisions of [[act:\|Section 8]] (1)(h) of the RTI Act, observed :-		while examining the applicability of the provisions of [[act:\|Section 8]] (1)(h) of the RTI Act, observed :-

-	“While in criminal law, an investigation can be said to be completed with the filing of charge sheet in the appropriate court by an investigating agency, in cases of vigilance related inquiries, misconduct and disciplinary matters, the investigation can be said to be over only when the competent authority makes a determination about the culpability or otherwise of the person or persons investigated against. In that sense, the word ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) should be construed rather broadly and should include all inquiries, verification of records, assessments and so on which may be ordered in specific cases. In all such matters, the inquiry or investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima facie determination about the presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/inquiry report from the investigation/inquiry officer”.	+	“While in criminal law, an investigation can be said to be completed with the filing of charge sheet in the appropriate court by an investigating agency, in cases of vigilance related inquiries, misconduct and disciplinary matters, the investigation can be said to be over only when the [[explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]] makes a determination about the culpability or otherwise of the person or persons investigated against. In that sense, the word ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h) should be construed rather broadly and should include all inquiries, verification of records, assessments and so on which may be ordered in specific cases. In all such matters, the inquiry or investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima facie determination about the presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/inquiry report from the investigation/inquiry officer”.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	Read the [[act:\|RTI Act]] 2005 here		Read the [[act:\|RTI Act]] 2005 here

-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

Justification for Denial of Information is mandatory

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:06:56 +0000

2018/06/03 05:37		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Justification for Denial of Information is mandatory ======		====== Justification for Denial of Information is mandatory ======
-	{{like>}} {{tag>CIC,denial of information, decisions,}}	+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations justification for denial under rti rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. A PIO cannot refuse information with boilerplate. Section 7(8) requires a reasoned order with the specific Section 8 clause cited, the applicant's appeal rights, and the First Appellate Authority's name.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Generic citations ('confidential', 'policy') are not valid grounds.
		+	* The burden of proving the exemption is on the PIO under Section 19(5).
		+	* Thin reasoning invites reversal at first appeal.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+	{{like>}} {{tag>cic denial of information decisions}}
	===== Central Information Commission Decisions =====		===== Central Information Commission Decisions =====
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

-	- Quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.(({{ :explanations:decision_07072006_1.pdf \|CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006}}))	+
		+	- Quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the [[explanations:information\|information]] requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.(({{ :explanations:decision_07072006_1.pdf \|CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006}}))
	- The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.(({{ :explanations:decision_30082006_1.pdf \|CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006.}}))		- The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.(({{ :explanations:decision_30082006_1.pdf \|CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006.}}))
	- Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions the exception. The information can be denied only if it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reason and such reason should be germane and based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be denied………(({{ :explanations:cic_bs_a_2013_000681_4968_m_130757.pdf \|CIC/BS/A/2013/000681/4968 dated 24-04- 2014}}))		- Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions the exception. The information can be denied only if it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reason and such reason should be germane and based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be denied………(({{ :explanations:cic_bs_a_2013_000681_4968_m_130757.pdf \|CIC/BS/A/2013/000681/4968 dated 24-04- 2014}}))

	===== Court Decisions =====		===== Court Decisions =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	- “6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case ………….”(({{ :explanations:delhi_high_court.pdf \|Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in W. P. (C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE versus D.K.SHARMA –Judgement dated 15-12-2010}}))		- “6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case ………….”(({{ :explanations:delhi_high_court.pdf \|Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in W. P. (C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE versus D.K.SHARMA –Judgement dated 15-12-2010}}))
Line 40:		Line 33:
	This article is inspired from the original post made by J.P. Shah in the blog post [[https://jps50.blogspot.in/2014/06/justification-for-reasons-for-denial.html\|here]]!		This article is inspired from the original post made by J.P. Shah in the blog post [[https://jps50.blogspot.in/2014/06/justification-for-reasons-for-denial.html\|here]]!
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
		+

Missing Files under RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:14:58 +0000

2018/01/21 08:25		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Missing Files under RTI Act ======		====== Missing Files under RTI Act ======

		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations missing files under rti rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public...)}}

-	Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority.	+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. If the public authority says a record is not traceable, the Public Information Officer must record a search report. The non-availability of records is not an automatic ground of refusal and may attract liability under Section 20 where the authority was expected to hold the record.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Ask specifically for the file number or the record identifier in the application. This prevents the authority from saying "no such record exists" on a loose reading.
		+	* If the authority claims the file is missing, file a further application seeking the search report, the First Information Report lodged on the missing file, if any, and the action taken on the officer responsible.
		+	* The Central Information Commission has held in several orders that the loss of an official record without a reasonable explanation attracts liability on the Public Information Officer and the record-holder.
		+	* A first appeal under Section 19(1) is available against a refusal on the ground of non-availability, and a second appeal under Section 19(3) lies to the Information Commission.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+
		+	Unless proved that record was destroyed as per the [[explanations:prescribed\|prescribed]] rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]].


Line 13:		Line 28:

	The public authority has a duty to designate “Public Records Officer” as per Public Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.		The public authority has a duty to designate “Public Records Officer” as per Public Records Act 1993. This Act is made to regulate the management, administration and preservation of public records of the Central Government, Union Territory Administrations, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies and corporations, commissions and committees constituted by the Central Government or a Union Territory Administration and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sought under the RTI Act, 2005 as “[[explanations:information\|Information]]” through RTI Application.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sought under the RTI Act, 2005 as “Information” through RTI Application.	+

	S 5 (1) Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.		S 5 (1) Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.
Line 52:		Line 56:

	The documents considered to be of “permanent nature’’ — but no longer required by the department which created them — are then shifted to the archives for safekeeping. There, they can be seen by research scholars.		The documents considered to be of “permanent nature’’ — but no longer required by the department which created them — are then shifted to the archives for safekeeping. There, they can be seen by research scholars.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, its missing should invite criminal complaint against officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offence charged from 7 years to 10 years and for life).		Loss of records that are required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, its missing should invite criminal complaint against officials under sections 201 of IPC (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to the seriousness of the offence charged from 7 years to 10 years and for life).
Line 76:		Line 69:

	6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.		6. This can hardly be disputed that if certain information is available with a public authority, that information must necessarily be shared with the applicant under the Act unless such information is exempted from disclosure under one or more provisions of the Act. It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”		7. Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the wilful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”

Line 102:		Line 84:
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
	[<>]		[<>]
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

Pendency of Investigation

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:45:23 +0000

2017/04/12 02:35		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Pendency of Investigation ======		====== Pendency of Investigation ======
-	{{:explanations:pendency-of-investigation-rti.jpg?350 \|}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations pendency of investigation rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(The authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.)}}

-	The authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.	+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 8(1)(h) exempts information that would impede an investigation, apprehension, or prosecution. The bar is high — a general investigation is not automatic cover.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* The PIO must show a specific impediment, not a generic 'investigation pending' label.
		+	* Once the investigation is complete, the exemption usually falls away.
		+	* Section 8(2) public-interest override applies where the investigation is itself the matter of concern.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{:explanations:pendency-of-investigation-rti.jpg?350x262 \|}}
		+
		+	The authority withholding [[explanations:information\|information]] must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.


Line 20:		Line 33:
	//“19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of [[act:\|Section 8(1)(h)]] RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.//		//“19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of [[act:\|Section 8(1)(h)]] RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception.//

-	//A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information	+	//A [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information
	would 'impede' the investigation...............//		would 'impede' the investigation...............//

Line 41:		Line 54:
	- Information on ongoing investigation (Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police ((F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006)), it ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process.		- Information on ongoing investigation (Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In the case of Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police ((F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006)), it ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process.
	- Disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The case of Sarvesh Kaushal Vs. F.C.I and others ((Appeal Nos. 243 /ICPB /2006 and 244 / ICPB /2006, dated 27.12.2006)). The departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h).		- Disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The case of Sarvesh Kaushal Vs. F.C.I and others ((Appeal Nos. 243 /ICPB /2006 and 244 / ICPB /2006, dated 27.12.2006)). The departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h).
-	- Public authority to disclose information if public interest out weighs the harm to the protected interests (Section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act). The case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi ((S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi (Appeal No. CIC / WB/A/20060523, dated 26.3.2007))	+	- Public authority to disclose information if [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] out weighs the harm to the protected interests (Section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act). The case of S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi ((S.R. Goyal vs. PIO, Services Department, Delhi (Appeal No. CIC / WB/A/20060523, dated 26.3.2007))
	- There is no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of Disciplinary Proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is therefore justified. The case of Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts ((Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts, (Decision No. 92/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00405 dated, 20.06.2007))		- There is no justification at this stage to interfere with the process of Disciplinary Proceedings, which is a quasi-judicial function. The denial of information sought under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is therefore justified. The case of Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts ((Shri B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts, (Decision No. 92/IC(A)/2007 F. No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00405 dated, 20.06.2007))
	- Disclosure of information to a person involved and responsible for contributing to the fraud is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. ((Mr. M.B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts))		- Disclosure of information to a person involved and responsible for contributing to the fraud is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. ((Mr. M.B.S. Manian Vs. Department of Posts))


-	== More Common terms under RTI ==	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]
		+	~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

Prescribed

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 15:28:01 +0000

2018/06/03 05:38		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Prescribed ======		====== Prescribed ======
-	{{tag>prescribed,section 2, rti act}} {{like>}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations prescribed rti right to information india)
-	Section 2 (g)defines “prescribed” as "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;"	+	metatag-description=(Section 2 (g)defines “prescribed” as "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;")}}
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	{{tag>prescribed section 2 rti act}} {{like>}}
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+	Section 2 (g)defines “prescribed” as "prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the [[explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]], as the case may be;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	===== Interpretation of Prescribed under RTI Act =====		===== Interpretation of Prescribed under RTI Act =====

Line 20:		Line 13:
	Other Public Authorities or departments have no authority to make any rules.		Other Public Authorities or departments have no authority to make any rules.

-	It is normally accepted that regulations also cannot go beyond what is authorised, For example, rules cannot specify exempting any information, beyond what is exempted under section 8 of the RTI Act.	+	It is normally accepted that regulations also cannot go beyond what is authorised, For example, rules cannot specify exempting any [[explanations:information\|information]], beyond what is exempted under section 8 of the RTI Act.

	===== There is an additional view =====		===== There is an additional view =====

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) suggests that it is normally accepted that regulations cannot go beyond what is authorised, either explicitly or implicitly, by the primary legislation. One cannot, via regulation, get into matters that are not within the remit of the law.		Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) suggests that it is normally accepted that regulations cannot go beyond what is authorised, either explicitly or implicitly, by the primary legislation. One cannot, via regulation, get into matters that are not within the remit of the law.
Line 42:		Line 24:
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
	[<>]		[<>]

Privacy Rights of Public Servants

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:45:23 +0000

2016/03/01 10:57		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Privacy Rights of Public Servants ======		====== Privacy Rights of Public Servants ======

-	Hon’ble Delhi High Court(( Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India [AIR2010Delhi7] )) with regard to privacy rights of Public servants had observed that :	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations privacy public servants rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Hon’ble Delhi High Court(( Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India [AIR2010Delhi7] )) with regard to privacy rights of Public servants had observed that :)}}

-	A bare consideration of the right of individuals, including public servants, to privacy would seem to suggest that privacy rights, by virtue of [[:act\|Section 8(1)(j)]] whenever asserted, would have to prevail. However, that is not always the case, since the public interest element, seeps through that provision.

-	Thus when a member of the public requests information about a public servant, a distinction must be made between "official" information inherent to the position and those that are not, and therefore affect only his/her private life. This balancing task appears to be easy; but is in practice, not so, having regard to the dynamics inherent in the conflict. Though it may be justifiably stated that protection of the public servant's private or personal details as an individual, is necessary, provided that such protection does not prevent due accountability, there is a powerful counter argument that public servants must effectively waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency.	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Public servants carry a diluted privacy claim. Service record, postings, pay scale, and disciplinary orders are generally disclosable — but ACRs (Annual Confidential Reports), medical records, and personal financial information retain stronger protection under Section 8(1)(j).
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande// (2013) held ACRs and assets returns as exempt.
		+	* //CPIO SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal// (2020) balanced judicial-accountability disclosures against personal privacy.
		+	* The 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) tightens the personal-data test further.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	Hon’ble Delhi High Court(( Vijay Prakash Vs. Union of India [AIR2010Delhi7] )) with regard to [[explanations:privacy\|privacy]] rights of Public servants had observed that :
		+
		+	A bare consideration of the right of individuals, including public servants, to privacy would seem to suggest that privacy rights, by virtue of [[:act\|Section 8(1)(j)]] whenever asserted, would have to prevail. However, that is not always the case, since the [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] element, seeps through that provision.
		+
		+	Thus when a member of the public requests [[explanations:information\|information]] about a public servant, a distinction must be made between "official" information inherent to the position and those that are not, and therefore affect only his/her private life. This balancing task appears to be easy; but is in practice, not so, having regard to the dynamics inherent in the conflict. Though it may be justifiably stated that protection of the public servant's private or personal details as an individual, is necessary, provided that such protection does not prevent due accountability, there is a powerful counter argument that public servants must effectively waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency.

	Thus, if public access to the personal details such as identity particulars of public servants, i.e. details such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers, or other personal information furnished to public agencies, is requested, the balancing exercise, necessarily dependant and evolving on case by case basis may take into account the following relevant considerations, i.e.		Thus, if public access to the personal details such as identity particulars of public servants, i.e. details such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers, or other personal information furnished to public agencies, is requested, the balancing exercise, necessarily dependant and evolving on case by case basis may take into account the following relevant considerations, i.e.
Line 17:		Line 32:
	The character of protection, therefore, which is afforded to the two classes public servants and private individuals, has to be viewed from this perspective. The nature of restriction on the right to privacy is therefore of a different order;		The character of protection, therefore, which is afforded to the two classes public servants and private individuals, has to be viewed from this perspective. The nature of restriction on the right to privacy is therefore of a different order;

-	in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded is greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending on what is at stake. Therefore, if an important value in public disclosure of personal information is demonstrated, in the particular facts of a case, the protection afforded by Section 8(1)(j) may not be available; in such case, the information officer can proceed to the next step of issuing notice to the concerned public official, as a "third party" and consider his views on why there should be no disclosure.	+	in the case of private individuals, the degree of protection afforded is greater; in the case of public servants, the degree of protection can be lower, depending on what is at stake. Therefore, if an important value in public disclosure of personal information is demonstrated, in the particular facts of a case, the protection afforded by Section 8(1)(j) may not be available; in such case, the information officer can proceed to the next step of issuing notice to the concerned public official, as a "[[explanations:third-party\|third party]]" and consider his views on why there should be no disclosure.

	The onus of showing that disclosure should be made, is upon the individual asserting it; he cannot merely say that as the information relates to a public official, there is a [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] element. Adopting such a simplistic argument would defeat the object of Section 8(1)(j); the legislative intention in carving out an exception from the normal rule requiring no "locus" by virtue of Section 6, in the case of exemptions, is explicit through the non obstante clause.		The onus of showing that disclosure should be made, is upon the individual asserting it; he cannot merely say that as the information relates to a public official, there is a [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] element. Adopting such a simplistic argument would defeat the object of Section 8(1)(j); the legislative intention in carving out an exception from the normal rule requiring no "locus" by virtue of Section 6, in the case of exemptions, is explicit through the non obstante clause.
Line 23:		Line 38:
	The article on [[explanations:privacy\|What is Privacy under RTI]] may also be read.		The article on [[explanations:privacy\|What is Privacy under RTI]] may also be read.

-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}
		+	~~socialite~~
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy\|What is Privacy under RTI]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

What is Privacy under RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:14:58 +0000

2017/05/03 01:39		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== What is Privacy under RTI ======		====== What is Privacy under RTI ======

-	Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as: "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:"	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations privacy rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as: "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Privacy under the RTI Act is principally the shield in Section 8(1)(j) — personal information that has no relationship to public activity or interest, or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* 14 November 2025 amendment removed the proviso that information not deniable to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen.
		+	* The override now runs only through Section 8(2) — public interest must be specifically invoked.
		+	* //K.S. Puttaswamy// (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right — this strengthens the 8(1)(j) shield.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	Under Section 8 (1) (j) [[explanations:information\|information]] which has been exempted is defined as: "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] justifies the disclosure of such information:"

	===== Criterion =====		===== Criterion =====
-	When a citizen is seeking information about his own case, there is no intrusion into the privacy of his case for denying the information.((Decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 -Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat)) Personal information mean about a third party. [[:act\|Section 8(1)(j)]] can be applied only when some one is seeking information about a [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] and there will be an element of invasion of privacy.	+	When a citizen is seeking information about his own case, there is no intrusion into the privacy of his case for denying the information.((Decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 -Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat)) Personal information mean about a [[explanations:third-party\|third party]]. [[:act\|Section 8(1)(j)]] can be applied only when some one is seeking information about a [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] and there will be an element of invasion of privacy.

	CIC Defined “Invasion of Privacy” as <wrap em>//“One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”//</wrap>		CIC Defined “Invasion of Privacy” as <wrap em>//“One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.”//</wrap>

-	A personal information must be saved from being made public by the public authority which happens to receive such information. It is to be remembered that a personal information does not cease to be personal just because it is delivered into the care of the public authority by the individual such information.	+	A personal information must be saved from being made public by the [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] which happens to receive such information. It is to be remembered that a personal information does not cease to be personal just because it is delivered into the care of the public authority by the individual such information.

-	Commission also cannot be oblivious to the fact that personal information, when allowed to be accessed by third parties has the potentially to expose the owner of such information to mischief, harassment, intimidation, defamation and worse. The boundaries of personal/private domains must never be allowed to be breached and, if at all breached, must be for compelling reasons, cautiously, carefully and responsibly evaluated by a competent authority as the Act can't be so interpeted as to allow poaching by third parties into personal domains (([[http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Scope-of-Section-8-1-j-of-The-RTI-Act-2005-Privacy-as-abuse-for-claiming-exemption-3768.asp\|Mukesh Shukla]] ))	+	Commission also cannot be oblivious to the fact that personal information, when allowed to be accessed by third parties has the potentially to expose the owner of such information to mischief, harassment, intimidation, defamation and worse. The boundaries of personal/private domains must never be allowed to be breached and, if at all breached, must be for compelling reasons, cautiously, carefully and responsibly evaluated by a [[explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]] as the Act can't be so interpeted as to allow poaching by third parties into personal domains (([[http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Scope-of-Section-8-1-j-of-The-RTI-Act-2005-Privacy-as-abuse-for-claiming-exemption-3768.asp\|Mukesh Shukla]] ))

	To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria ((REFERENCE: Bishamber Dayal Tyagi v PIO, Delhi Jal Board, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000172/3092)):		To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria ((REFERENCE: Bishamber Dayal Tyagi v PIO, Delhi Jal Board, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000172/3092)):
Line 36:		Line 51:
	- Personal Information sought by legal heir of the deceased employee is not exempted to him.		- Personal Information sought by legal heir of the deceased employee is not exempted to him.
	The [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]] may be read here!		The [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]] may be read here!
-	===== Is another Public authority third party under RTI Act =====
-	The Government in a number of cases makes inter departmental consultations. In the process, a public authority may send some confidential papers to another public authority. A question has arisen whether the recipient public authority can disclose such confidential papers under the RTI Act, 2005. If yes, what procedure is required to be followed for doing so.

-	Section 11 of the Act provides the procedure of disclosure of 'third party' information. According to it, if a Public Information Officer (PIO) intends to disclose an information supplied by a third party which the third party has treated as confidential, the PIO, before taking a decision to disclose the information shall invite the third party to make submission in the matter. The third party has a right to make an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority, a second appeal to the concerned Information Commission. The PIO cannot disclose such information unless the procedure prescribed in section 11 is completed. As defined in clause (a) of [[act:\|Section 2]] of the Act, 'third party' includes a public authority. Reading of the definition of the term, 'third party' and Section 11 together makes it clear that if a public authority 'X' receives some information from another public authority 'Y' which that public authority has treated as confidential, then 'X' cannot disclose the information without consulting 'Y', the third party in respect of the information and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. Is it a statutory requirement, non-compliance of which may make the PIO liable to action.(({{ :explanations:no_990.pdf \|Another Public Authority is Third Party, DOPT OM}} ))
	----		----
	===== Discuss this topic =====		===== Discuss this topic =====
Line 50:		Line 62:

	[<>]		[<>]
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}

Public Authority

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:14:58 +0000

2018/06/01 15:00		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Public Authority ======		====== Public Authority ======
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations public authority rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(As defined in Section 2 (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted — a) by or under the...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 2(h) defines a 'public authority' — any authority, body, or institution constituted by or under the Constitution, a law of Parliament or State legislature, or a notification of the appropriate Government. Extends to bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the Government.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Government departments, Central and State PSUs, statutory regulators, constitutional bodies, are all public authorities.
		+	* Cooperative societies were held outside in //Thalappalam// (2013) unless substantially financed.
		+	* Political parties — the CIC held six national parties as public authorities (2013); compliance is pending.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
	{{tag>public authority}}{{like>}}		{{tag>public authority}}{{like>}}
-	{{:explanations:pa.jpg\|}}	+	{{:explanations:pa.jpg?350x350\|}}
	===== Who is Public Authority =====		===== Who is Public Authority =====
	As defined in [[act:\|Section 2 (h)]] “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted —		As defined in [[act:\|Section 2 (h)]] “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted —
Line 9:		Line 29:
	d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate		d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
	Government, and includes any--		Government, and includes any--
-	(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;	+	(i) body owned, controlled or [[explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]];
	(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”		(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	===== Interpretation of Public Authority =====		===== Interpretation of Public Authority =====
Line 34:		Line 43:
	Subclause d) (i) and (ii) mean any non-Government organisations and also private entities which are substantially owned, controlled or financed directly or indirectly by the Government are under the RTI ambit. Thus aided schools and colleges are Public Authorities. When there are significant Government nominees on the boards of companies, or trusts or NGOs this is control by the Government.		Subclause d) (i) and (ii) mean any non-Government organisations and also private entities which are substantially owned, controlled or financed directly or indirectly by the Government are under the RTI ambit. Thus aided schools and colleges are Public Authorities. When there are significant Government nominees on the boards of companies, or trusts or NGOs this is control by the Government.

-	<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) contends that besides serving the goals of their organisations the board members are also subject to government direction and that is enough to bring it under the Right to Information law.	+	<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) contends that besides serving the goals of their organisations the board members are also subject to government direction and that is enough to bring it under the Right to [[explanations:information\|Information]] law.
	</note>		</note>

	At times when the Government nominees do not have a majority, it is claimed that the Government does not have control. The plea that if Government nominees are not in complete control the organisation is not a public authority is flawed. It must be noted that the adjective ‘complete’ or ‘pervasive’ control is not mentioned.		At times when the Government nominees do not have a majority, it is claimed that the Government does not have control. The plea that if Government nominees are not in complete control the organisation is not a public authority is flawed. It must be noted that the adjective ‘complete’ or ‘pervasive’ control is not mentioned.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	Where the Government either owns substantial stake, or has control over, or has given substantial finance, these are public authorities, directly covered under the Right to Information Act. The substantial finance can take into account tax-incentives, subsidies and other concessions like land as well.		Where the Government either owns substantial stake, or has control over, or has given substantial finance, these are public authorities, directly covered under the Right to Information Act. The substantial finance can take into account tax-incentives, subsidies and other concessions like land as well.
Line 63:		Line 61:

	By any norm, whenever over 51 percent of the investment in a body lies with any entity, it is said to be owned by that entity and the Company law also confirms this. The RTI Act mentions ‘owned’ ‘controlled’ and ‘substantially financed’ separately, hence these words have to be assigned some meaning not covered by ownership. It is apparent that the intention of the Parliament is to extend the scope of the right to other organisations, which are not owned by the government, but are financed by government funds or controlled by appropriate Government.		By any norm, whenever over 51 percent of the investment in a body lies with any entity, it is said to be owned by that entity and the Company law also confirms this. The RTI Act mentions ‘owned’ ‘controlled’ and ‘substantially financed’ separately, hence these words have to be assigned some meaning not covered by ownership. It is apparent that the intention of the Parliament is to extend the scope of the right to other organisations, which are not owned by the government, but are financed by government funds or controlled by appropriate Government.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	It may be noted that no word in any Act can be considered to be superfluous, unless the contradiction is such as to render a significant part meaningless, or it violates the Preamble. Therefore it becomes necessary to consider a situation where an entity may be controlled by Government without ownership or substantial finance like where they control the board of a trust.		It may be noted that no word in any Act can be considered to be superfluous, unless the contradiction is such as to render a significant part meaningless, or it violates the Preamble. Therefore it becomes necessary to consider a situation where an entity may be controlled by Government without ownership or substantial finance like where they control the board of a trust.
Line 88:		Line 75:
	Company Law gives significant rights to those who own 26 percent of the shares in a Company. No special resolutions may be passed unless 75 percent of the shareholders agrees. Thus, 26% holding represents control.		Company Law gives significant rights to those who own 26 percent of the shares in a Company. No special resolutions may be passed unless 75 percent of the shareholders agrees. Thus, 26% holding represents control.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	On the other hand, Section 2(6) of the Company law defines “associate company”, in relation to another company as: (6) “associate company”, in relation to another company, means a company in which that other company has a significant influence, but which is not a subsidiary company of the company having such influence and includes a joint venture company.		On the other hand, Section 2(6) of the Company law defines “associate company”, in relation to another company as: (6) “associate company”, in relation to another company, means a company in which that other company has a significant influence, but which is not a subsidiary company of the company having such influence and includes a joint venture company.
Line 111:		Line 87:
	<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) agrees with the conclusion here i.e. 20-25% but not for this reason. He suggests that this is not a business situation. It is about meeting a threshold of public funding which then attracts obligations.</note>		<note>Mendel, Toby (personal communication, May 13, 2016) agrees with the conclusion here i.e. 20-25% but not for this reason. He suggests that this is not a business situation. It is about meeting a threshold of public funding which then attracts obligations.</note>

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	It, therefore, appears reasonable to have a threshold representing 26 percent of the equity. Perhaps 20 percent of the running expenses could be considered as ‘substantial finance’. To obviate the problem which very small organizations may face in meeting the requirements of the Right to Information Act, it may also be reasonable to accept that if an NGO receives an amount - say less than 2 million - it would not be considered as substantial finance.		It, therefore, appears reasonable to have a threshold representing 26 percent of the equity. Perhaps 20 percent of the running expenses could be considered as ‘substantial finance’. To obviate the problem which very small organizations may face in meeting the requirements of the Right to Information Act, it may also be reasonable to accept that if an NGO receives an amount - say less than 2 million - it would not be considered as substantial finance.
Line 134:		Line 98:
	This would be indirect finance.		This would be indirect finance.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	It must be noted that the law does not cover entities which exercise public functions unless they are controlled or substantially financed by Government. A private entity which is not financed or controlled by government is not a ‘public authority’ as defined by this act. Public utilities like electricity distribution companies, or those providing and maintaining roads are not ‘public authorities’ as defined by the law unless it can be shown that they are controlled or substantially financed by the government. Many Rights to Information Act users feel that regulatory control should be considered as control. This view is generally not accepted, since almost all bodies are subject to certain regulations, and this would be too wide an interpretation of the law.		It must be noted that the law does not cover entities which exercise public functions unless they are controlled or substantially financed by Government. A private entity which is not financed or controlled by government is not a ‘public authority’ as defined by this act. Public utilities like electricity distribution companies, or those providing and maintaining roads are not ‘public authorities’ as defined by the law unless it can be shown that they are controlled or substantially financed by the government. Many Rights to Information Act users feel that regulatory control should be considered as control. This view is generally not accepted, since almost all bodies are subject to certain regulations, and this would be too wide an interpretation of the law.

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]

What is Public Interest under the RTI Act — updated April 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:56:01 +0000

2018/06/03 05:39		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== What is Public Interest ======	+	====== What is Public Interest under the RTI Act — updated April 2026 ======
-	{{like>}}{{tag>RTIAct}}	+
-	{{:explanations:screen_shot_2017-04-13_at_1.29.43_pm.png?300 \|}}	+

-	In various decisions, it has been held that the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. However, it has been held that 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision.	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(public interest RTI 2026, RTI Section 8(1)(j) after DPDP, does public interest override work 2026, RTI personal information disclosure current rules, Section 8(2) RTI override, rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Public interest under the RTI Act in 2026 — what the DPDP amendment actually changed, what it did not change, and how to write a Section 8(2) override plea that works on today's Public Information Officers.)}}

-	The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include	+	{{ :public-interest-flowchart.png?1200x662 \|Public interest under RTI 2026 — where Section 8(2) still works (green) versus the myths around the DPDP amendment (red)}}

-	- where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure;	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
-	- where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect;	+
-	- the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence;	+
-	- the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought;	+
-	- the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case;	+
-	- the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The terms public interest has to be interpreted as “Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.	+

-	----	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? The most common 2026 myth in RTI circles is that "DPDP killed public interest". It did not. What changed is the text of Section 8(1)(j). The Section 8(2) public-interest override survived, untouched. It is still the route to get personal information out when a larger public interest is on the record.
		+	</WRAP>

-	===== Court Decisions on Public Interest =====	+	//Updated 20 April 2026. Written for someone who has been refused under Section 8(1)(j) and has been told the override is "dead". It isn't.//

		+	===== Table of contents =====

-	The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61((Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61)) held that the statutory exemption provided under [[Act:\|Section 8]] of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. It was also held that 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The relevant extract from the said judgment is quoted below:	+	* [[#what_is_public_interest\|What is public interest]]
		+	* [[#what_changed_on_14_november_2025\|What changed on 14 November 2025]]
		+	* [[#before_and_after_\u2014_the_comparison\|Before and after — the comparison]]
		+	* [[#does_the_override_still_work_in_2026\|Does the override still work in 2026]]
		+	* [[#how_to_write_a_section_82_plea_that_wins\|How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins]]
		+	* [[#court_and_commission_rulings\|Court and Commission rulings]]
		+	* [[#stakeholder_impact\|Stakeholder impact]]
		+	* [[#frequently_asked_questions\|Frequently asked questions]]

-	''22. “The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs ((State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252])). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]''	+	//The table of contents is collapsed by default site-wide — click the heading to expand.//

-	''23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality.”''	+	===== What is public interest =====

-	The Hon’ble High Court in its decision dated 13/07/2012((W.P. (C) No. 1243 of 2011- UPSC vs. R.K. Jain)) wherein while discussing on the issue of disclosure of information in larger public interest the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not define "public interest" anywhere in its text. That is on purpose. The drafters left it to the Commissions and the Courts to fill in, case by case. What we have in 2026 is roughly three decades of accumulated judgments — from the //S.P. Gupta// expansion of Article 19(1)(a) in 1981, through //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) and its "disclosure is the rule" line, to [[important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|//K.S. Puttaswamy// (2017)]] and the proportionality test.

-	//“‘The second half of the first part of clause (j) of Section 8(1) shows that when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if “public interest” justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information.”//	+	In working language, public interest asks three things about a disclosure. Does it advance accountability in the use of public money or public power? Does it help detect, deter, or remedy wrongdoing? Does it enable a citizen to make an informed democratic choice? If the answer to any of those is yes, and the harm from disclosure does not clearly outweigh that benefit, the disclosure is in the public interest.

-	Furthermore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors.)(((Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors.) SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012)) is pertinent, wherein it was held as under:	+	The Act uses "public interest" in two distinct places. First, inside several Section 8(1) clauses as part of the definition of the exemption itself (for example, clause (j) asks whether the information has "any relationship to public activity or interest"). Second, and far more powerfully, in Section 8(2) as a free-standing override that applies to every Section 8(1) exemption — including the new 8(1)(j) — when the competent authority is satisfied that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected interest.

-	''“:13............Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”''	+	The second Section 8(2) override is the one that matters in 2026. It is the one people are told is dead. It is not.

-	The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in determining larger public interest in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120((R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120)) where it was observed as under:	+	===== What changed on 14 November 2025 =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	//54. The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced...”//	+

-	//55. ……………….When public interest immunity against disclosure of the State documents in the transaction of business by the Council of Ministers of the affairs of State is made, in the clash of those interests, it is the right and duty of the court to weigh the balance in the scales that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service and equally to the administration of justice.”//	+	Here is what the DPDP Rules, 2025 actually did to Section 8(1)(j) — and what they did not. This is the whole story, in one paragraph each.

		+	What changed. The text of Section 8(1)(j) was substituted through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which came into force with the notification of the DPDP Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025. The new text aligns "personal information" with the DPDP Act's definition of personal data. More importantly for practice, the in-clause proviso — the old line that said information which could not be denied to Parliament could not be denied to a citizen — has been removed. That line was an extra shield for applicants; it is gone.

-	In the Indian context, and especially in the context of the RTI Act, 2005, a significant judgment of the Supreme Court of India can be taken note of in understanding the term “public interest”. In ‘S. P. Gupta v President of India’, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati((S. P. Gupta v President of India’, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati)), in referring to ‘public interest’, maintained: “Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”	+	What did not change. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act was NOT amended. It still reads exactly as it did before. It still overrides any Section 8(1) exemption where the public-interest-to-disclose outweighs the harm-in-disclosure. It still applies at the First Appellate Authority and Information Commission stages (and at the PIO stage in many readings). And the broader constitutional anchor — Article 19(1)(a) and the //Puttaswamy// proportionality test — is entirely unaffected by the amendment.

-	In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212((Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212)), the Apex Court held “the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importamce covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]”.	+	The practical effect? The amendment moved the override out of clause (j) and put the full weight on Section 8(2). It did not abolish the override. It refocused it. See the full DPDP analysis at [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to Section 8(1)(j)]] and the current 2026 position at [[blog:dpdp-vs-rti-2026\|DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position]].

-	One of the decisions of the Central Information Commission((Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00046, dt. 02.05.2006.)) also throws some light on this term. Public interest includes “disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability” [in the working of a public authority]	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 Reality check. "The DPDP killed public interest" is the single most common mistake I hear in 2026 RTI circles. The DPDP did nothing of the sort. It trimmed clause (j), left Section 8(2) standing, and pushed applicants to draft the override plea more carefully. That is all.
		+	</WRAP>

-	----	+	===== Before and after — the comparison =====
-	===== Discuss this topic =====	+

-	~~DISCUSSION~~	+	^ Aspect ^ Pre-14 November 2025 ^ Post-14 November 2025 (current) ^
		+	\| "Parliament proviso" inside Section 8(1)(j) \| Applied \| Removed \|
		+	\| Section 8(2) free-standing public-interest override \| Applied to all Section 8(1) clauses \| Still applies to all Section 8(1) clauses \|
		+	\| Section 8(1)(j) test for personal information \| "Would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy" \| "Would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy" (now aligned with DPDP Act, 2023 definitions) \|
		+	\| Your own record under clause (j) \| Never within 8(1)(j) \| Still never within 8(1)(j) \|
		+	\| Public-interest override routes \| Two (in-clause + 8(2)) \| One (Section 8(2)) \|
		+	\| PIO drafting expectations \| Balance privacy and public good \| Same balance, now cited through Section 8(2) alone \|
		+	\| Constitutional lens \| Article 19(1)(a) + //Puttaswamy// proportionality \| Identical \|

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	The override did not die. The override moved house. Pre-November, you could plead it two ways (inside clause (j) or via Section 8(2)). Now it is a single-route argument — always Section 8(2).

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+	===== Does the override still work in 2026 =====

-	[<>]	+	Yes. Here is what works, and here is what needs sharper drafting than before.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(a) to (i) — override works exactly as before ====
		+
		+	For clauses (a) to (i) — sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, commercial confidence, fiduciary, security, foreign relations, investigation, cabinet papers — nothing has changed. If your request is refused under any of these, plead Section 8(2) and cite the harm vs benefit balance. These clauses were not touched by the DPDP amendment. The //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016) reading of the "fiduciary" clause and the //Bhagat Singh// reading of "impedes investigation" — see [[important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] and [[important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry]] — still control.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(j) — override works, but the plea has to be specific ====
		+
		+	On personal information, the Section 8(2) override still runs. What changed is the evidentiary burden. The First Appellate Authority and the Information Commission now expect the applicant to plead the public interest specifically, and at the application stage. A generic "public interest demands it" line is not enough. A specific line — "disclosure of these travel-expense entries is necessary to audit the diversion of public funds from scheme X between these two dates" — is enough.
		+
		+	==== Your own record, and aggregate data — no change at all ====
		+
		+	Requests about your own service record, disciplinary file, or claim were never within 8(1)(j), and still are not. Requests for aggregate or anonymised data (number of complaints, departmental pendency, scheme-wise expenditure) were never within 8(1)(j) either. The amendment does nothing to these; the refusal rates on these have not moved.
		+
		+	==== What a winning 2026 RTI actually looks like ====
		+
		+	* Works. "Total expenditure on project X between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, file note on sanction dated [Y], names of the signatories on the approval page of the file."
		+	* Fails at first instance, wins on appeal with 8(2) plea. "Certified copy of the travel vouchers of the officer holding charge of project X between the above dates, in the public interest of auditing the disbursement pattern."
		+	* Fails cleanly. "Mr Sharma's salary, phone number, and home address." No public-interest anchor, no public-activity link. Section 8(1)(j) bites.
		+
		+	Copy-paste query templates for the subjects where 8(2) is most often needed live at [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 Draft from a public-activity anchor. The trick that turns a dead-on-arrival personal-data RTI into a live 8(2) appeal is the framing. Anchor the request to a public function — an office, a scheme, a project, a rule, a decision — not to a person. The record about the person follows the office.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins =====
		+
		+	This is the part I spend the most time coaching new applicants on in 2026. There are five moving parts.
		+
		+	- Name the public interest. Not "in the public interest." Say exactly: "accountability in the disbursement of public funds under scheme X", "integrity of the tender process for project Y", "public verification of the functioning of the Vigilance cell in department Z". Specific. One sentence.
		+	- Name the harm you do not cause. Pre-empt the 8(1)(j) shield. "I do not seek the officer's home address, family members' identification, or medical data. I seek the record of their public function in this matter." This moves the PIO off the easy refusal.
		+	- Invoke Section 8(2) on the face of the application. Do not save it for appeal. One line: "If any portion is considered exempt under Section 8(1), I invoke Section 8(2) on the ground stated above."
		+	- Ask for Section 10 severance as a fallback. "If any part of the record is genuinely exempt, I request that the non-exempt portion be released under Section 10 of the Act." This forces the PIO to engage, not to refuse wholesale.
		+	- Keep the request narrow. Name the file. Name the period. Name the office. The narrower the request, the less room for a 7(9) "disproportionate diversion" refusal.
		+
		+	For the full drafting pattern across twelve subjects, see [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]]. For the ten most common drafting mistakes, see [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]]. For appeal drafting, see [[templates:first-appeal\|Template: first appeal]] and [[templates:second-appeal\|Template: second appeal]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 The line that moves a 2026 appeal. On the first appeal, I have found this one sentence does most of the work: //"The First Appellate Authority is invited to record a finding under Section 8(2) that the public interest in disclosure of the record sought — to enable public audit of expenditure under the named scheme — outweighs any privacy harm, which is not substantial as the record relates to the exercise of a public function."// Adapt it to your facts. It works more often than not.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Court and Commission rulings =====
		+
		+	The working jurisprudence on public interest is stable. Three anchor rulings do most of the weight-lifting. Newer rulings apply them to new fact patterns.
		+
		+	^ Year ^ Case ^ What it did ^
		+	\| 2011 \| [[important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|//CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//]] \| Established that disclosure is the rule; exemption is the exception; file notings are information \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|//Girish Ramchandra Deshpande//]] \| ACRs and property returns generally exempt under 8(1)(j); but "larger public interest" can override \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|//Thalappalam v. Kerala//]] \| Narrowed "substantially financed"; coops outside RTI unless substantial funding \|
		+	\| 2016 \| [[important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|//RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//]] \| Fiduciary clause 8(1)(e) read narrowly; regulator is not a fiduciary of the regulated \|
		+	\| 2017 \| [[important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|//K.S. Puttaswamy//]] \| Privacy is a fundamental right; proportionality test applies to any State limitation \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[important-decisions:electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|//Electoral Bonds// (ADR)]] \| Voter's right to know political funding under Article 19(1)(a); transparency is constitutional \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[blog:delhi-hc-phd-theses-rti-ruling-2024\|Delhi HC %%PhD%% theses ruling]] \| Theses at publicly-funded universities disclosable; Section 8(1)(j) read narrowly; severance is the answer \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC on public servants' assets]] \| Annual Property Returns disclosable with specific public-interest plea via Section 8(2) \|
		+
		+	Post-November 2025 orders continue to apply the //Puttaswamy// proportionality test. The [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply analysis]] tracks the drafting register of compliant denials. As of April 2026, a few writ petitions are reported pending in Delhi and Madras High Courts testing the constitutionality of the DPDP substitution of clause (j). None has resulted in a reported stay; the substitution operates as law.
		+
		+	===== Stakeholder impact =====
		+
		+	^ Stakeholder ^ What changed for you ^ What to do today ^
		+	\| Citizen \| Plead Section 8(2) at the application stage; don't rely on the old in-clause proviso \| Anchor requests to a public function, not a person \|
		+	\| Public Information Officer \| Must test the 8(2) plea on the record's facts; cannot boilerplate-refuse \| Pass a reasoned order per Section 7(8); invoke Section 10 severance where possible \|
		+	\| First Appellate Authority \| Expect more 8(2) pleas; apply proportionality, don't rubber-stamp \| [[guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|FAA guide]] + [[templates:faa-speaking-order\|speaking order template]] \|
		+	\| Information Commission \| First wave of orders under new 8(1)(j) shaping the expectations \| Publish reasoned orders for precedent value \|
		+	\| Researcher \| Published records and case law — unchanged; internal drafts — narrower \| Shift more to gazette + final orders; use Shodhganga for %%PhD%% theses \|
		+	\| Activist \| Documented refusals now feed any constitutional challenge \| Share refusals via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] \|
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	^ Question ^ Short answer ^
		+	\| Did the DPDP amendment kill the public-interest override? \| No. It removed the in-clause proviso within Section 8(1)(j). The stand-alone Section 8(2) override is unchanged and still applies. \|
		+	\| Can I still get someone's salary via RTI? \| Only if the public interest in that salary clearly outweighs the privacy harm. Anchor it to a public function (misuse of a sanction, disproportionate assets enquiry). A bare salary request without that anchor fails under 8(1)(j). \|
		+	\| Do I need to say "Section 8(2)" in my application? \| Yes. Specifically name the clause and name the public interest. Vague language is the main reason 8(2) pleas fail at first instance. \|
		+	\| What about ACRs and property returns? \| //Girish Deshpande// still controls. Generally exempt under 8(1)(j); disclosable where a specific public interest is pleaded. See the [[important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande page]] and the [[important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC direction]]. \|
		+	\| Has the Supreme Court ruled on the DPDP substitution? \| As of April 2026, writ petitions are pending in High Courts. No binding Supreme Court ruling on the substitution yet. \|
		+	\| Can my own record be refused under 8(1)(j)? \| No. Your own information was never within 8(1)(j), and is not now. \|
		+	\| Does Section 8(2) apply at the PIO stage or only on appeal? \| The text of Section 8(2) does not limit the stage; it applies wherever a 8(1) exemption is being considered. In practice, many PIOs apply it; if not, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission certainly do. \|
		+	\| What if the PIO refuses without citing any 8(1) clause at all? \| That refusal itself is defective under Section 7(8). File a first appeal on that ground. A bare "confidential" is not a valid refusal. \|
		+	\| How is the proportionality test applied? \| Identify the public interest; identify the privacy harm; ask whether there is a less restrictive alternative (often Section 10 severance); conclude. See the [[important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|Puttaswamy]] framework. \|
		+	\| Where can I share a refusal I've received? \| Via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] — post in the discussion on any relevant page. \|
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	Filing right now?
		+	* New to RTI? Start at [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 step-by-step]].
		+	* Need a template? Copy one from [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* Refused already? Read [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]] and grab the [[templates:first-appeal\|first-appeal template]].
		+	* Got a PIO refusal worth studying? Share it in the discussion at the bottom of this page via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related on this site =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text]], Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	* [[:act/summary\|RTI Act summary, sections, and notes]].
		+	* [[explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection — concept note]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy\|Privacy under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy of public servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:severability\|Severability — Section 10]].
		+	* [[explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|Fiduciary relationship — Section 8(1)(e)]].
		+	* [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment]].
		+	* [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+	* [[blog:dpdp-vs-rti-2026\|DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position]].
		+	* [[blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
		+	* [[:faq\|FAQ — twenty-five most-asked questions]].
		+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India]].
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]].
		+	* [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* [[:state-vs-central-rti\|State RTI vs Central RTI]].
		+	* [[important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
		+	- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
		+	- //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
		+	- //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
		+	- //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
		+	- //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
		+	- //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
		+	- //Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India// (Electoral Bonds), Supreme Court, 15 February 2024.
		+	- //Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner//, W.P. (C) 3114/2007, Delhi High Court.
		+	- Delhi High Court direction on RTI access to %%PhD%% theses, December 2024.
		+
		+	===== Last reviewed on =====
		+
		+	20 April 2026. Post-DPDP Section 8(2) jurisprudence still unfolding; watch the High Court writ petitions challenging the clause-(j) substitution.
		+
		+	{{tag>rti public-interest section-8-2 section-8-1-j dpdp-2025 2026 current-position explanations}}

-	~~LINKBACK~~
-	~~socialite~~

Refund of Fees

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 15:28:01 +0000

2018/01/21 08:26		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Refund of Fees ======		====== Refund of Fees ======

-	{{tag>RTIAct}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations refund fees rti right to information india)
-	Observations made by the High Court of Gujarat ((in the matter of Ahmedabad Education Society & Another Vis UOI & Others [Special Civil Application No.23305 of 2007])) to the notice of the Central Infonnation Commission and all the State Information Commissions:	+	metatag-description=(Observations made by the High Court of Gujarat ((in the matter of Ahmedabad Education Society & Another Vis UOI & Others [Special Civil Application No.23305 of...)}}
		+
		+
		+	{{tag>rti-act}}
		+	Observations made by the High Court of Gujarat ((in the matter of Ahmedabad Education Society & Another Vis UOI & Others [Special Civil Application No.23305 of 2007])) to the notice of the Central Infonnation Commission and all the State [[explanations:information\|Information]] Commissions:

	"As per Section 18, the Complaint can be preferred before the State Information Commission and Chief Information Commissioner can initiate an inquiry and can impose penalty as per Section 20 .of the Act, 2005. While holding inquiry, as per [[:act\|Section 18(3)]] of the Act, 2005, State Chief Information.		"As per Section 18, the Complaint can be preferred before the State Information Commission and Chief Information Commissioner can initiate an inquiry and can impose penalty as per Section 20 .of the Act, 2005. While holding inquiry, as per [[:act\|Section 18(3)]] of the Act, 2005, State Chief Information.

-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

-	COmmissioner has been clothed with powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral and written evidence or oath, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit; requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office. But so far as refund of fees is concerned, it is a mater to be decided by the Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure, 1907.	+
		+	Commissioner has been clothed with powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral and written evidence or oath, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit; requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office. But so far as refund of fees is concerned, it is a mater to be decided by the Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure, 1907.
	State Chief Information· Commissioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority under the Act,f005, to pass an order of refund of the fees."		State Chief Information· Commissioner has no power, jurisdiction and authority under the Act,f005, to pass an order of refund of the fees."

RTI Act or Statutory Rules for giving information under RTI Act 2005

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:06:56 +0000

2015/10/16 01:46		current
Line 2:		Line 2:
	====== RTI Act or Statutory Rules for giving information under RTI Act 2005 ======		====== RTI Act or Statutory Rules for giving information under RTI Act 2005 ======

-	<WRAP left round info 95%>	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations rti act or statutory act rti right to information india)
-	Once Public Authorities have put information in the public domain and put a price on accessing that information, they cannot be said to hold control of that information in terms of [[:act\|Section 2(j)]] of the RTI Act. If any application is made under RTI Act to access such already disclosed information, it would suffice if the public authority informed the applicant where and how to access that information and also the fact that it was already in the public domain.	+	metatag-description=(Once Public Authorities have put information in the public domain and put a price on accessing that information, they cannot be said to hold control of that...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. The RTI Act is a statutory Act — not a constitutional amendment. But the right it enforces (Article 19(1)(a)) is constitutional. The Act provides the machinery to exercise that right.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Section 22 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent older laws like the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
		+	* The Act can be amended by Parliament (and was, in 2019); the right under Article 19(1)(a) cannot.
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
-

		+	Once Public Authorities have put [[explanations:information\|information]] in the public domain and put a price on accessing that information, they cannot be said to hold control of that information in terms of [[:act\|Section 2(j)]] of the RTI Act. If any application is made under RTI Act to access such already disclosed information, it would suffice if the [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] informed the applicant where and how to access that information and also the fact that it was already in the public domain.
		+
	The inference from the text of this sub-section and, especially the three expressions quoted above, is that an information to which a citizen will have a right should be shown to be a) an information which is accessible under the RTI Act and b) that it is held or is under the control of a certain public authority. This should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the [[:act\|RTI Act]]. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the [[:act\|RTI Act]].		The inference from the text of this sub-section and, especially the three expressions quoted above, is that an information to which a citizen will have a right should be shown to be a) an information which is accessible under the RTI Act and b) that it is held or is under the control of a certain public authority. This should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the [[:act\|RTI Act]]. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the [[:act\|RTI Act]].

-	This interpretation is further strengthened by the provisions of the RTI Act in [[:act\|Sections 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4)]], which oblige the public authority to constantly endeavour “to take steps in accordance with the requirement of clause b of subsection 1 of the Section 4 to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.” (Section 4 sub-section 2). This Section further elaborates the position. It states that “All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.”	+	This interpretation is further strengthened by the provisions of the RTI Act in [[:act\|Sections 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4)]], which oblige the public authority to constantly endeavour “to take steps in accordance with the requirement of clause b of subsection 1 of the Section 4 to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.” (Section 4 sub-section 2). This Section further elaborates the position. It states that “All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be [[explanations:prescribed\|prescribed]].”

	The RTI Act very clearly sets the course for the evolution of the RTI regime, which is that less and less information should be progressively held by public authorities, which would be accessed under the RTI Act and more and more of such held information should be brought into the public domain suo-motu by such public authority.		The RTI Act very clearly sets the course for the evolution of the RTI regime, which is that less and less information should be progressively held by public authorities, which would be accessed under the RTI Act and more and more of such held information should be brought into the public domain suo-motu by such public authority.
Line 19:		Line 28:

	===== Citations =====		===== Citations =====
-	<WRAP left round download 95%>	+

	- [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/AT-12042007-01.pdf\|Shri K. Lall Vs Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO, NCT of Delhi & Haryana]] F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 Dated, the 12th April, 2007 , By Sh. A.N. TIWARI, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Or Download from here: {{:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:at-12042007-01.pdf\|}}		- [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/AT-12042007-01.pdf\|Shri K. Lall Vs Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO, NCT of Delhi & Haryana]] F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 Dated, the 12th April, 2007 , By Sh. A.N. TIWARI, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Or Download from here: {{:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:at-12042007-01.pdf\|}}
	- [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2009_001883_M_45628.pdf\|Shri Deepak Agnihotri Vs State Bank of India, New Delhi]] F.No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001883AT Dated, the 11th November, 2010 by By Sh. A.N. TIWARI, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER or Download from here: {{:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:cic_sm_a_2009_001883_m_45628.pdf\|}}		- [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2009_001883_M_45628.pdf\|Shri Deepak Agnihotri Vs State Bank of India, New Delhi]] F.No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001883AT Dated, the 11th November, 2010 by By Sh. A.N. TIWARI, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER or Download from here: {{:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:cic_sm_a_2009_001883_m_45628.pdf\|}}
-	</WRAP>	+
		+	----
		+	===== Discuss this topic =====

	~~DISCUSSION~~		~~DISCUSSION~~

-	==== More Common terms under RTI ====	+	===== More Common terms under RTI =====

	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]
		+

Severability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:14:58 +0000

2018/06/03 10:12		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Severability ======		====== Severability ======
-	{{tag>severability, rti act}}	+
		+
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations severability rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Download RTI Act. Prescribed. Competent Authority under RTI Act. The RTI Act, 2005. What is Information under RTI Act.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 10 is the rule against blanket refusal. If part of a record is exempt, the PIO must redact that part and release the rest. The PIO's order must say what was withheld and why.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Used correctly, severability resolves most Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) disputes.
		+	* A refusal of an entire mixed record without severance is itself appealable.
		+	* Redaction should be minimal — only the actually exempt text, not the whole paragraph.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[act:languages\|Download RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:prescribed\|Prescribed]].
		+	* [[explanations:competent-authority\|Competent Authority under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[act:start\|The RTI Act, 2005]].
		+	* [[explanations:information\|What is Information under RTI Act]].
		+
		+	{{tag>severability rti act}}
	{{ :explanations:severability.jpg \|}}		{{ :explanations:severability.jpg \|}}
	What is severability under RTI Act		What is severability under RTI Act
Line 7:		Line 35:

	===== Interpretation =====		===== Interpretation =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	The important aspect of ‘severability’ must be considered by a PIO before denying information. If part of the information asked by an applicant is exempt, the balance information must be provided after removing the part which is exempted.		The important aspect of ‘severability’ must be considered by a PIO before denying information. If part of the information asked by an applicant is exempt, the balance information must be provided after removing the part which is exempted.
Line 39:		Line 56:

	===== Interpretation =====		===== Interpretation =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	If a part of the information is severed as per Section 10(1) the PIO must:		If a part of the information is severed as per Section 10(1) the PIO must:
Line 61:		Line 67:
	~~socialite~~		~~socialite~~
	----		----
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-fb+5w+4e-db+86"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="3623150129"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

	[<>]		[<>]

Substantially Financed

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:06:56 +0000

2018/06/01 15:06		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Substantially Financed ======		====== Substantially Financed ======
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations substantially financed rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(As per the RTI Act Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a 'public authority' stipulates as follows:)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. A body is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) if it is substantially financed by the Government. The test is whether the funding is substantial in kind and quantum, as narrowed by //Thalappalam v. State of Kerala// (2013).
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* A one-off grant is not substantial financing.
		+	* Free or concessional land, buildings, or assets at below-market rates can count.
		+	* The proportion (typically 50% or more) and the nature of State dependence both matter.
		+	* Cooperative societies held outside the Act in //Thalappalam//; private trusts require close examination.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}
	===== What is the meaning of Substantially financed under RTI Act =====		===== What is the meaning of Substantially financed under RTI Act =====

-	As per the [[act:\|RTI Act]] Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a 'public authority' stipulates as follows:	+	As per the [[act:\|RTI Act]] Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a '[[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]]' stipulates as follows:

	"[[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]]" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-		"[[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]]" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-
Line 19:		Line 33:
	===== More Interpretations from various Court Decisions =====		===== More Interpretations from various Court Decisions =====

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	The words “substantially financed” have been used in [[:act\|Sections 2(h)(d)(i) & (ii)]], while defining the expression public authority as well as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression “appropriate Government”. A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds		The words “substantially financed” have been used in [[:act\|Sections 2(h)(d)(i) & (ii)]], while defining the expression public authority as well as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression “appropriate Government”. A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds
	provided by the appropriate Government. The expression “substantially financed”, as such, has not been defined under the Act.		provided by the appropriate Government. The expression “substantially financed”, as such, has not been defined under the Act.
Line 40:		Line 43:

	Belonging to substance; actually existing; real: not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.		Belonging to substance; actually existing; real: not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	'In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word 'substantial' means 'of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; sold; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.'		'In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word 'substantial' means 'of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; sold; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.'
Line 59:		Line 50:

	The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act.		The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act.
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety five per cent grant-in-aid from the appropriate government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i).		But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety five per cent grant-in-aid from the appropriate government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i).
Line 76:		Line 55:

	===== More Common terms under RTI =====		===== More Common terms under RTI =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

Line 93:		Line 61:

	~~DISCUSSION~~		~~DISCUSSION~~
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:vicarious-liability\|Vicarious Liability]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy\|What is Privacy under RTI]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

Suo Moto Disclosure under RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:46:46 +0000

2018/02/05 04:52		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Suo Moto Disclosure under RTI ======		====== Suo Moto Disclosure under RTI ======
-	{{tag>SuoMoto, Disclosure, Section4}}{{like>}}

-	Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act lays down the information which should be disclosed by Public Authorities on a suo motu or proactive basis. Section 4(2) and Section 4(3) prescribe the method of dissemination of this information. The purpose of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 is to place large amount of information in public domain on a proactive basis to make the functioning of the Public Authorities more transparent and also to reduce the need for filing individual RTI applications.	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations suo moto disclosure under rti rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act lays down the information which should be disclosed by Public Authorities on a suo motu or proactive basis.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 4 of the Right to Information Act requires every public authority to publish seventeen categories of information on its own, without waiting for an application.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* The seventeen categories include the authority's organisation and functions, the duties of its officers, decision-making channels, norms used for the discharge of functions, rules and regulations, documents held, arrangements for public consultation, list of boards and committees, directory of officers, monthly pay scales, budget, subsidy programmes, beneficiaries, facilitation arrangements for Right to Information requests, and the Public Information Officer's name and address.
		+	* The information must be published electronically where possible, and updated at least annually.
		+	* If a public authority has not published in terms of Section 4, the reader may file an application under Section 6(1) for the same information, or file a complaint under Section 18 before the Information Commission for non-compliance with Section 4.
		+	* The 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) affects the treatment of personal information in Section 4 disclosures. Information about beneficiaries or officers must now be tested against the amended clause.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{tag>suo-moto disclosure section4}}
		+
		+	Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act lays down the [[explanations:information\|information]] which should be disclosed by Public Authorities on a suo motu or proactive basis. Section 4(2) and Section 4(3) prescribe the method of dissemination of this information. The purpose of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 is to place large amount of information in public domain on a proactive basis to make the functioning of the Public Authorities more transparent and also to reduce the need for filing individual RTI applications.

	- Proactive disclosure should be done in the local language so that it remains accessible to public.		- Proactive disclosure should be done in the local language so that it remains accessible to public.
Line 17:		Line 39:
	{{ :explanations:adobe_spark_7_.jpg \|}}		{{ :explanations:adobe_spark_7_.jpg \|}}

-	If Public services are proposed to be provided through a Public Private Partnership (PPP), all information relating to the PPPs must be disclosed in the public domain by the Public Authority entering into the PPP contract/concession agreement. This may include details of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), if any set up, detailed project reports, concession agreements, operation and maintenance manuals and other documents generated as part of the implementation of the PPP project. The documents under the ambit of the exemption from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be disclosed suo motu. Further, information about fees, tolls, or other kinds of revenue that may be collected under authorization from the Government, information in respect of outputs and outcomes, process of selection of the private sector party may also be proactively disclosed. All payments made under the PPP project may also be disclosed in a periodic manner along with the purpose of making such payment.	+	If Public services are proposed to be provided through a Public Private Partnership (PPP), all information relating to the PPPs must be disclosed in the public domain by the [[explanations:public-authority\|Public Authority]] entering into the PPP contract/concession agreement. This may include details of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), if any set up, detailed project reports, concession agreements, operation and maintenance manuals and other documents generated as part of the implementation of the PPP project. The documents under the ambit of the exemption from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be disclosed suo motu. Further, information about fees, tolls, or other kinds of revenue that may be collected under authorization from the Government, information in respect of outputs and outcomes, process of selection of the private sector party may also be proactively disclosed. All payments made under the PPP project may also be disclosed in a periodic manner along with the purpose of making such payment.

	==== Transfer Policy and Transfer Orders ====		==== Transfer Policy and Transfer Orders ====
Line 24:		Line 46:

	==== RTI Applications ====		==== RTI Applications ====
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>


-	All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities with search facility based on key words. RTI applications and appeals received and their responses relating to the personal information of an individual may not be disclosed, as they do not serve any public interest.	+	All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities with search facility based on key words. RTI applications and appeals received and their responses relating to the personal information of an individual may not be disclosed, as they do not serve any [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]].

	==== CAG & PAC paras ====		==== CAG & PAC paras ====
Line 49:		Line 59:

	==== Discretionary and Non-discretionary grants ====		==== Discretionary and Non-discretionary grants ====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	All discretionary /non-discretionary grants/ allocations to state governments/ NGOs/Other institutions by Ministry/Department should be placed on the website of the Ministry/Department concerned. Annual Accounts of all legal entities who are provided grants by Public Authorities should be made available through publication, directly or indirectly on the Public Authority's website. Disclosures would be subject to provisions of Section 8 to 11 of the RTI Act.		All discretionary /non-discretionary grants/ allocations to state governments/ NGOs/Other institutions by Ministry/Department should be placed on the website of the Ministry/Department concerned. Annual Accounts of all legal entities who are provided grants by Public Authorities should be made available through publication, directly or indirectly on the Public Authority's website. Disclosures would be subject to provisions of Section 8 to 11 of the RTI Act.
Line 69:		Line 68:
	A large number of RTI queries are being filed on official tours undertaken by Ministers or officials of various Government Ministries/Departments. Information regarding the nature, place and period of foreign and domestic tours of Prime Minister are already disclosed on the PMO's website.		A large number of RTI queries are being filed on official tours undertaken by Ministers or officials of various Government Ministries/Departments. Information regarding the nature, place and period of foreign and domestic tours of Prime Minister are already disclosed on the PMO's website.

-	As per DoPT's OM No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11/9/2012, Public Authorities may proactively disclose the details of foreign and domestic official tours undertaken by the Minister(s) and officials of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above and Heads of Departments, since 1st January, 2012. The disclosures may be updated once every quarter.	+	As per %%DoPT%%'s OM No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11/9/2012, Public Authorities may proactively disclose the details of foreign and domestic official tours undertaken by the Minister(s) and officials of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above and Heads of Departments, since 1st January, 2012. The disclosures may be updated once every quarter.

	Information to be disclosed proactively may contain nature of the official tour, places visited, the period, number of people included in the official delegation and total cost of such travel undertaken. Exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 may be kept in view while disclosing the information. These instructions would not apply to security and intelligence organisations under the second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and CVOs of public authoritiy		Information to be disclosed proactively may contain nature of the official tour, places visited, the period, number of people included in the official delegation and total cost of such travel undertaken. Exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 may be kept in view while disclosing the information. These instructions would not apply to security and intelligence organisations under the second schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and CVOs of public authoritiy
Line 94:		Line 93:
	===== The procedure followed in the decision-making processes =====		===== The procedure followed in the decision-making processes =====

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+


Line 117:		Line 105:
	===== Guidelines for Section 4(1)(b)(iv) - "the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions" =====		===== Guidelines for Section 4(1)(b)(iv) - "the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions" =====
	- Defining the services and goods that the particular public authority/office provides directly (or indirectly through any other agency/contractor).		- Defining the services and goods that the particular public authority/office provides directly (or indirectly through any other agency/contractor).
-	- Detailing and describing the processes by which the public can access and/or receive the goods and services that they are entitled to, from the public authority/office along with the forms, if any prescribed, for use by both the applicant and the service providing agency. Links to such forms (online), wherever available, should be given.	+	- Detailing and describing the processes by which the public can access and/or receive the goods and services that they are entitled to, from the public authority/office along with the forms, if any [[explanations:prescribed\|prescribed]], for use by both the applicant and the service providing agency. Links to such forms (online), wherever available, should be given.
	- Describing the conditions, criteria and priorities under which a person becomes eligible for the goods and services, and consequently the categories of people who are entitled to receive the goods and services.		- Describing the conditions, criteria and priorities under which a person becomes eligible for the goods and services, and consequently the categories of people who are entitled to receive the goods and services.
	efining the quantitative and tangible parameters, (weight, size, frequency etc,) and timelines, that are applicable to the goods and services that are accessible to the public.		efining the quantitative and tangible parameters, (weight, size, frequency etc,) and timelines, that are applicable to the goods and services that are accessible to the public.
Line 139:		Line 127:

	===== Compliance with Provisions of suo motu (proactive) disclosure under the RTI Act =====		===== Compliance with Provisions of suo motu (proactive) disclosure under the RTI Act =====
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>


	- Each Ministry/Public Authority shall ensure that these guidelines are fully operationalized within a period of 6 months from the date of their issue.		- Each Ministry/Public Authority shall ensure that these guidelines are fully operationalized within a period of 6 months from the date of their issue.
	- Proactive disclosure as per these guidelines would require collating a large quantum of information and digitizing it. For this purpose, Ministries/Public Authorities may engage consultants or outsource such work to expeditiously comply with these guidelines. For this purpose, the plan/non-plan funds of that department may be utilized.		- Proactive disclosure as per these guidelines would require collating a large quantum of information and digitizing it. For this purpose, Ministries/Public Authorities may engage consultants or outsource such work to expeditiously comply with these guidelines. For this purpose, the plan/non-plan funds of that department may be utilized.
-	- The Action Taken Report on the compliance of these guidelines should be sent, along with the URL link, to the DoPT and Central Information Commission soon after the expiry of the initial period of 6 months.	+	- The Action Taken Report on the compliance of these guidelines should be sent, along with the URL link, to the %%DoPT%% and Central Information Commission soon after the expiry of the initial period of 6 months.
-	- Each Ministry/ Public Authority should get its proactive disclosure package audited by third party every year. The audit should cover compliance with the proactive disclosure guidelines as well as adequacy of the items included in the package. The audit should examine whether there are any other types of information which could be proactively disclosed. Such audit should be done annually and should be communicated to the Central Information Commission annually through publication on their own websites. All Public Authorities should proactively disclose the names of the third party auditors on their website. For carrying out third party audit through outside consultants also, Ministries/Public Authorities should utilize their plan/non-plan funds.	+	- Each Ministry/ Public Authority should get its proactive disclosure package audited by [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] every year. The audit should cover compliance with the proactive disclosure guidelines as well as adequacy of the items included in the package. The audit should examine whether there are any other types of information which could be proactively disclosed. Such audit should be done annually and should be communicated to the Central Information Commission annually through publication on their own websites. All Public Authorities should proactively disclose the names of the third party auditors on their website. For carrying out third party audit through outside consultants also, Ministries/Public Authorities should utilize their plan/non-plan funds.
	- The Central Information Commission should examine the third-party audit reports for each Ministry/Public Authority and offer advice/recommendations to the concerned Ministries/ Public Authorities.		- The Central Information Commission should examine the third-party audit reports for each Ministry/Public Authority and offer advice/recommendations to the concerned Ministries/ Public Authorities.
	- Central Information Commission should carry out sample audit of few of the Ministries/ Public Authorities each year with regard to adequacy of items included as well as compliance of the Ministry/Public Authority with these guidelines.		- Central Information Commission should carry out sample audit of few of the Ministries/ Public Authorities each year with regard to adequacy of items included as well as compliance of the Ministry/Public Authority with these guidelines.

Third Party under RTI

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 01:14:58 +0000

2018/06/03 15:25		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Third Party under RTI ======		====== Third Party under RTI ======
-	{{like>}}{{tag>Insert Tag-Syntax}}	+
-	The High Court of Delhi((Delhi High Court Decision: Suhas Chakma v. CIC & Ors. W. P. (C) No. 9118/2009 dated 22/01/2010)) held - “that information which involves the rights of privacy of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The authority cannot simply come to conclusion, that too, on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that public interest overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party”.	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations third party rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(The High Court of Delhi((Delhi High Court Decision: Suhas Chakma v. CIC & Ors. W. P. (C) No.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? Under Section 11, third-party notice is mandatory when information is supplied in confidence by another person. A PIO who skips the ten-day notice-and-hearing sequence has committed a procedural default — the order is automatically infirm at appeal.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 11 of the Right to Information Act requires the Public Information Officer to notify a third party when the information sought has been supplied by the third party and has been treated by it as confidential.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* A "third party" is any person, other than the applicant and the public authority, whose interest is affected by the disclosure.
		+	* The notice under Section 11(1) must be issued within five days of the receipt of the application.
		+	* The third party has ten days to make a representation against disclosure.
		+	* The Public Information Officer must take a decision within forty days of receipt of the application. Section 11 extends the standard thirty-day timeline for this class of matter.
		+	* The third-party procedure is a requirement of natural justice. It is not itself a ground of refusal. The Public Information Officer may still disclose against the third party's wishes, with the reasons recorded in writing.
		+	* Section 8(1)(j) as amended on 14 November 2025 affects the position of personal information about a third party. See [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	New to RTI? File your first application in ten minutes. See [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]] with a ready-to-use English and Hindi template, the Rs 10 online fee flow, and the appeal path.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{tag>insert tag-syntax}}
		+	The High Court of Delhi((Delhi High Court Decision: Suhas Chakma v. CIC & Ors. W. P. (C) No. 9118/2009 dated 22/01/2010)) held - “that [[explanations:information\|information]] which involves the rights of [[explanations:privacy\|privacy]] of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The authority cannot simply come to conclusion, that too, on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that [[explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party”.

	Section 11(1) of the [[act:]] provides as follows:		Section 11(1) of the [[act:]] provides as follows:
Line 15:		Line 43:

	“......looking to the provision of Section 11(1) of the Act, 2005, the words, the information ‘relating to or is supplied by the third party’ are such that it is for the third party to point out to the Public Information Officer sought for, to be disclosed supplied is treated as confidential but, third party can make a submission that now it is treating the said information as confidential. More so, when information is ‘relating to third party’ it may not be even know to that third party when and what information relating to third party, was collected by public body.................... What is confidential to the third party is known to the third party alone. There may not be a rubber stamp upon the information that this is confidential information. It is right vested in the third party to treat any information ‘relating to or supplied by the third party’ as confidential.”		“......looking to the provision of Section 11(1) of the Act, 2005, the words, the information ‘relating to or is supplied by the third party’ are such that it is for the third party to point out to the Public Information Officer sought for, to be disclosed supplied is treated as confidential but, third party can make a submission that now it is treating the said information as confidential. More so, when information is ‘relating to third party’ it may not be even know to that third party when and what information relating to third party, was collected by public body.................... What is confidential to the third party is known to the third party alone. There may not be a rubber stamp upon the information that this is confidential information. It is right vested in the third party to treat any information ‘relating to or supplied by the third party’ as confidential.”
-	{{:explanations:third-party-rti.jpeg?400 \|}}	+	{{:explanations:third-party-rti.jpeg?400x246 \|}}

	The said judgment also says, “What satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to disclosure of information about satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to the Act especially Section 8(d), 8(j) and proviso to Section 11(1) and looking to the process of disclosing information to the appellant ‘relating to or supplied by the third party and treated as confidential by the third party’, the Act imposes a duty upon Public Information Officer to arrive at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweighs, harm or injury, to the protected interest of such third party, or larger public interest warrants, disclosure of such information, in considering whether the		The said judgment also says, “What satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to disclosure of information about satisfaction must be arrived at, prior to the Act especially Section 8(d), 8(j) and proviso to Section 11(1) and looking to the process of disclosing information to the appellant ‘relating to or supplied by the third party and treated as confidential by the third party’, the Act imposes a duty upon Public Information Officer to arrive at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweighs, harm or injury, to the protected interest of such third party, or larger public interest warrants, disclosure of such information, in considering whether the
Line 21:		Line 49:

	In this regard, it may be worthwhile to note the observations of //Muralidhar, J. of the High Court of Delhi in Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO W. P. (C) 6614/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 12685/2008, W. P. (C) 8999/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 7517/2008, W. P. (C) 8407/2009 and C. M. Appl. 5286/2009 decided on 30/07/2010//, in Paragraph 21, which are as follows:		In this regard, it may be worthwhile to note the observations of //Muralidhar, J. of the High Court of Delhi in Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO W. P. (C) 6614/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 12685/2008, W. P. (C) 8999/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 7517/2008, W. P. (C) 8407/2009 and C. M. Appl. 5286/2009 decided on 30/07/2010//, in Paragraph 21, which are as follows:
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	//“...It requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is totally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8. The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person about whom information is being sought. Such defense could be taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1) when upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist disclosure on the grounds of privacy.		//“...It requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is totally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8. The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person about whom information is being sought. Such defense could be taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1) when upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist disclosure on the grounds of privacy.

Line 73:		Line 90:
	==== What is Public Activities performed by Public Authorities? ====		==== What is Public Activities performed by Public Authorities? ====

-	Public authorities in routine course take personal information of citizens: "The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a public activity. Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorization or passport, all these are public activities. Also when a citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity."	+	Public authorities in routine course take personal information of citizens: "The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a public activity. Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorization or passport, all these are public activities. Also when a citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity."

	==== Citizen's right to information is given priority with regard to privacy: ====		==== Citizen's right to information is given priority with regard to privacy: ====

	"The Supreme Court of India has ruled that citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of mis-governance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the citizen's right to information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy."		"The Supreme Court of India has ruled that citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of mis-governance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the citizen's right to information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy."
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	In extraordinary situations, there are other laws which apply to secure privacy of information: "We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply; usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. "
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	In extraordinary situations there are other laws which apply to secure privacy of information: "We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply; usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. "	+

	==== What does exemption of information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act mean? ====		==== What does exemption of information under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act mean? ====
Line 100:		Line 106:
	It is clearly stated at Section 11 (1) that		It is clearly stated at Section 11 (1) that

-	Submission of third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Section 11 does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. It only gives the third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. The PIO will keep these in mind and denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI act.	+	Submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Section 11 does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. It only gives the third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. The PIO will keep these in mind and denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under Section 8 (1) of the RTI act.

	The test of public interest is to be applied to give information, only if any of the exemptions of Section 8 apply. Even if the exemptions apply, the Act enjoins that if there is a larger Public interest, the information would still have to be given. There is no requirement in the Act of establishing any public interest for information to be obtained by the sovereign Citizen; nor is there any requirement to establish larger Public interest, unless an exemption is held to be valid.		The test of public interest is to be applied to give information, only if any of the exemptions of Section 8 apply. Even if the exemptions apply, the Act enjoins that if there is a larger Public interest, the information would still have to be given. There is no requirement in the Act of establishing any public interest for information to be obtained by the sovereign Citizen; nor is there any requirement to establish larger Public interest, unless an exemption is held to be valid.
Line 109:		Line 115:

	===== Is another Public authority third party under RTI Act =====		===== Is another Public authority third party under RTI Act =====
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>

	The third party has to be someone apart from the applicant and the Public authority from whom the information is sought. However, another public authority would also be considered as a third party.		The third party has to be someone apart from the applicant and the Public authority from whom the information is sought. However, another public authority would also be considered as a third party.
Line 126:		Line 120:
	The Government in a number of cases makes inter departmental consultations. In the process, a public authority may send some confidential papers to another public authority. A question has arisen whether the recipient public authority can disclose such confidential papers under the RTI Act, 2005. If yes, what procedure is required to be followed for doing so.		The Government in a number of cases makes inter departmental consultations. In the process, a public authority may send some confidential papers to another public authority. A question has arisen whether the recipient public authority can disclose such confidential papers under the RTI Act, 2005. If yes, what procedure is required to be followed for doing so.

-	Section 11 of the Act provides the procedure of disclosure of 'third party' information. According to it, if a Public Information Officer (PIO) intends to disclose an information supplied by a third party which the third party has treated as confidential, the PIO, before taking a decision to disclose the information shall invite the third party to make submission in the matter. The third party has a right to make an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority, a second appeal to the concerned Information Commission. The PIO cannot disclose such information unless the procedure prescribed in section 11 is completed. As defined in clause (a) of [[act:\|Section 2]] of the Act, 'third party' includes a public authority. Reading of the definition of the term, 'third party' and Section 11 together makes it clear that if a public authority 'X' receives some information from another public authority 'Y' which that public authority has treated as confidential, then 'X' cannot disclose the information without consulting 'Y', the third party in respect of the information and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. Is it a statutory requirement, non-compliance of which may make the PIO liable to action.(({{ :explanations:no_990.pdf \|Another Public Authority is Third Party, DOPT OM}} ))	+	Section 11 of the Act provides the procedure of disclosure of 'third party' information. According to it, if a Public Information Officer (PIO) intends to disclose an information supplied by a third party which the third party has treated as confidential, the PIO, before taking a decision to disclose the information shall invite the third party to make submission in the matter. The third party has a right to make an appeal to the Departmental Appellate Authority, a second appeal to the concerned Information Commission. The PIO cannot disclose such information unless the procedure [[explanations:prescribed\|prescribed]] in section 11 is completed. As defined in clause (a) of [[act:\|Section 2]] of the Act, 'third party' includes a public authority. Reading of the definition of the term, 'third party' and Section 11 together makes it clear that if a public authority 'X' receives some information from another public authority 'Y' which that public authority has treated as confidential, then 'X' cannot disclose the information without consulting 'Y', the third party in respect of the information and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. Is it a statutory requirement, non-compliance of which may make the PIO liable to action.(({{ :explanations:no_990.pdf \|Another Public Authority is Third Party, DOPT OM}} ))

	- {{:explanations:cic_ad_a_2011_001494_sg_14922_m_67611.pdf\|Mr. S. K. Kalra Vs Ministry Of External Affairs}} File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001494/SG/14922 dated 21.09.2011		- {{:explanations:cic_ad_a_2011_001494_sg_14922_m_67611.pdf\|Mr. S. K. Kalra Vs Ministry Of External Affairs}} File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001494/SG/14922 dated 21.09.2011
Line 137:		Line 131:

	===== More Common terms under RTI =====		===== More Common terms under RTI =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}		{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}

Line 154:		Line 137:

	~~DISCUSSION~~		~~DISCUSSION~~
		+

Transfer of Application to other PIO

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:41:35 +0000

2018/12/02 11:24		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Transfer of Application to other PIO ======		====== Transfer of Application to other PIO ======
-	{{tag>Section-6,Transfer}}	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations transfer application rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Section 6(3) requires the PIO to transfer a misdirected RTI to the correct public authority within five days. The applicant does not refile.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Transfer is the PIO's duty, not the applicant's burden.
		+	* The 30-day clock re-starts from the receiving authority's receipt date.
		+	* Failure to transfer is itself a ground for first appeal and Section 20 penalty.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{tag>section-6 transfer}}
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}
	===== Provision of the RTI Act for Transfer of Application =====		===== Provision of the RTI Act for Transfer of Application =====

-	{{:explanations:trasnfer-rti.png?nolink \|}}As per the Section 6 (3) [[act:\|RTI Act 2005]] Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information which is held by another public authority; or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:	+	{{:explanations:trasnfer-rti.png?nolink &128x128\|}}As per the Section 6 (3) [[act:\|RTI Act 2005]] Where an application is made to a [[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] requesting for an [[explanations:information\|information]] which is held by another public authority; or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:

	Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.		Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.

	===== Interpretation of the Provision =====		===== Interpretation of the Provision =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	'Section 6( 1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a person who desires to obtain any in formation shall make a request to the public information officer (PlO) of the concerned public authority. Section 6(3) provides that where an application is made to a public authority requesting for any information which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority to which such application is made,shall transfer the application to that other public authority. A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section(3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PlO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him/her would be available with the public authority to which he/she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PlO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PlO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the' concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfill his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'.		'Section 6( 1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a person who desires to obtain any in formation shall make a request to the public information officer (PlO) of the concerned public authority. Section 6(3) provides that where an application is made to a public authority requesting for any information which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority to which such application is made,shall transfer the application to that other public authority. A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section(3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PlO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him/her would be available with the public authority to which he/she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PlO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PlO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the' concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfill his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'.

Line 49:		Line 51:

	==== Scenario III: No Information is available but the information is scattered ====		==== Scenario III: No Information is available but the information is scattered ====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PlO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do. At the same time, since the information is not related to anyone particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not 'other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note.		If no part of the information sought, is available with it but is scattered with more than one other public authorities, the PlO should inform the applicant that information is not available with the public authority and that the applicant should make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them. It may be noted that the Act requires the supply of such information only which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is beyond the scope of the Act for a public authority to create information. Collection of information, parts of which are available with different public authorities, would amount to creation of information which a public authority under the Act is not required to do. At the same time, since the information is not related to anyone particular public authority, it is not the case where application should be transferred under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) refers to 'another public authority' and not 'other public authorities'. Use of singular form in the Act in this regard is important to note.

Vicarious Liability

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 16:41:35 +0000

2018/01/21 08:26		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{keywords>vicarious liability, rti law, department responsibility, vicarious liability under rti}}		{{keywords>vicarious liability, rti law, department responsibility, vicarious liability under rti}}
	====== Vicarious Liability ======		====== Vicarious Liability ======
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(explanations vicarious liability rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility...)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In one line. Under Section 20, penalty for delay or refusal is on the PIO personally, not the department. But the First Appellate Authority, the public authority, and deemed PIOs can face recommendations for disciplinary action alongside.
		+
		+	What that means in practice.
		+	* Penalty: Rs 250 per day of delay, up to Rs 25,000, from the PIO's own pocket.
		+	* The FAA is liable if they rubber-stamp a bad PIO order.
		+	* The public authority pays compensation under Section 19(8)(b) for loss caused to the applicant.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
	{{like>}}		{{like>}}

-	{{:explanations:vicarious-liability-rti.png?nolink&600\|}}	+	{{:explanations:vicarious-liability-rti.png?nolink&600x341\|}}

-	Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability.(([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability\|Wikipedia]]))	+	Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability.(([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability\|Wikipedia]]))

	In the {{:explanations:dr-nazrul-islam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-ors-on-31-august-2016.pdf\|Dr. Nazrul Islam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016}} the court(({{:explanations:dr-nazrul-islam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-ors-on-31-august-2016.pdf\|}})) stated that:		In the {{:explanations:dr-nazrul-islam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-ors-on-31-august-2016.pdf\|Dr. Nazrul Islam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016}} the court(({{:explanations:dr-nazrul-islam-vs-state-of-west-bengal-ors-on-31-august-2016.pdf\|}})) stated that:
Line 12:		Line 25:

	It is the Department who has to compensate a citizen for any loss, detriment or harassment suffered by him by reason of failure of its officers to perform their duty. It makes little difference whether such duty is statutory or non-statutory. It does not lie in the mouth of the Department to say that it is an inanimate or impersonal entity and responsibility and liability should be fixed only on its officers.		It is the Department who has to compensate a citizen for any loss, detriment or harassment suffered by him by reason of failure of its officers to perform their duty. It makes little difference whether such duty is statutory or non-statutory. It does not lie in the mouth of the Department to say that it is an inanimate or impersonal entity and responsibility and liability should be fixed only on its officers.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-ho+2-b-g+21"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6380931599"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

	The Department must make good the loss suffered by a citizen by non-discharging of their duties by the Department's recalcitrant and indolent officers and, thereafter the Department is at liberty to take appropriate steps against its erring officers and bring them to books. In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen.		The Department must make good the loss suffered by a citizen by non-discharging of their duties by the Department's recalcitrant and indolent officers and, thereafter the Department is at liberty to take appropriate steps against its erring officers and bring them to books. In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen.
Line 37:		Line 39:

	~~DISCUSSION~~		~~DISCUSSION~~
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|Investigation/Inquiry reports under RTI]].
		+	* [[explanations:composite-petition\|Composite Petition under RTI Act]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy Rights of Public Servants]].
		+	* [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially Financed]].
		+	* [[explanations:privacy\|What is Privacy under RTI]].
		+
		+	{{tag>rti explanations}}
		+

2026/04/20 06:27	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	====== Information Commissioner Tenure and Salaries — the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and after ======
	+
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI Amendment Act 2019, Information Commissioner tenure 2026, CIC salary 2026, Section 13 RTI Act, Section 15 RTI Act, Section 16 RTI Act, Central Government administrative control, Anjali Bhardwaj v Union, rti right to information india)
	+	metatag-description=(The current position on tenure, salary, and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at the Centre and in the States, as amended by the RTI Amendment Act, 2019.)}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? Until 2019, the Chief Information Commissioner drew a salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner — which was tied by statute to a Supreme Court Judge's salary. The 2019 amendment cut that link. The Central Government now fixes the salary by rule.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	In one line. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019, effective 24 October 2019) substituted Sections 13, 15, and 16 of the RTI Act, 2005. Tenure, salary, and service conditions of every Information Commissioner in India are now determined by the Central Government by rule, not by statute.
	+
	+	What that means in practice.
	+	* Tenure: Fixed term of three years (previously: until sixty-five years of age, or five-year term, whichever was earlier).
	+	* Salary: Fixed by the Central Government by rule — no longer statutorily linked to a Supreme Court or Election Commissioner's salary.
	+	* Service conditions: Central Government notifies allowances, leave, and other terms.
	+	* Scope: The amendment covers the Central Information Commission and every State Information Commission.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== What the Act said before 2019 =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005, as originally enacted, fixed the tenure, salary, and service conditions of Information Commissioners by statute:
	+
	+	* Central Chief Information Commissioner — tenure and salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner.
	+	* Central Information Commissioners — tenure and salary equal to Election Commissioners.
	+	* State Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners — pegged to the Central equivalents but with appropriate State-Government modifications.
	+
	+	The statutory link was deliberate. The drafters of 2005 tied Commissioners' status to constitutional officers so that their salary, pension, and service conditions could not be varied by executive rule. This was a protection for institutional independence.
	+
	+	Commissioner tenure under the pre-2019 Act was five years or age 65, whichever was earlier.
	+
	+	===== What the 2019 Amendment did =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 substituted the relevant sub-sections:
	+
	+	==== Section 13 — Central Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 13(2). Term of office and service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+	* Section 13(5). Salary, allowances, and other service conditions "shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	==== Section 15 — State Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Section 15(4) and (5). Tenure and service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner — "as may be prescribed by the Central Government". (Note: Central Government, not the State Government.)
	+
	+	==== Section 16 — State Information Commissioners ====
	+
	+	* Section 16(2) and (5). Tenure and service conditions — again, "as may be prescribed by the Central Government".
	+
	+	Parliament supplemented the substituted statutory text with the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019 — commonly called the RTI Rules, 2019, notified on 24 October 2019.
	+
	+	Under the 2019 Rules:
	+
	+	* Tenure: Three years, or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier.
	+	* Salary (Central Chief Information Commissioner): Equivalent to a salary of a Secretary to the Government of India — not the former Chief Election Commissioner / Supreme Court Judge scale.
	+	* Salary (Central Information Commissioners): As notified under the 2019 Rules.
	+	* Salary (State Information Commissioners): Also fixed by the Central Rules.
	+	* Re-appointment: Not available — once the term expires, the officeholder demits office.
	+
	+	===== Why it matters =====
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was described by the Government as an exercise in administrative rationalisation — aligning tenure and pay of the Information Commissions with those of other statutory bodies. Critics, including a broad coalition of civil-society organisations and 120 Opposition Members of Parliament, argued that the amendment:
	+
	+	* Reduced the institutional independence of the Commissions by making their terms a matter of executive rule rather than Parliamentary statute.
	+	* Shortened tenure from five to three years, increasing turnover and reducing institutional memory.
	+	* Empowered the Central Government to fix even State Commissioners' terms, arguably encroaching on the federal scheme of the Act.
	+	* Removed the status parity with Election Commissioners, which had served as a reputational and functional anchor for the RTI regime.
	+
	+	The 2019 amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//. The Court declined to strike down the amendment but issued detailed directions on the process of appointments, emphasising the need for transparency, timely filling of vacancies, and publication of the reasons for selection. Those directions have become the anchoring framework for every subsequent appointment.
	+
	+	===== What the current position means for applicants =====
	+
	+	The tenure-and-salary changes do not alter the rights of an RTI applicant. The Act's substantive right under Section 3, the procedure under Sections 6 and 7, and the appeal ladder under Sections 19 and 20 are unchanged. What applicants notice, indirectly, is:
	+
	+	* Shorter tenures produce more transitions. New Commissioners, new hearing benches, and shifting panel compositions affect the pace of second appeals.
	+	* Pendency pressure. Three-year terms combined with long gaps between appointments contribute to the widely-cited pendency figures across the Central and State Commissions. See [[blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]] and the [[blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|decade-of-change essay]].
	+	* Uniform Central control means the service conditions of the Information Commissioner in your State are set by the Central Government, not by your State Government — a point worth knowing when correspondence about a delayed appeal reaches the State Secretariat.
	+
	+	===== Status as of April 2026 =====
	+
	+	The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 is in force. The RTI Rules, 2019 continue to govern tenure and salaries. The DPDP Rules, 2025 substitution of Section 8(1)(j) (see [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|the DPDP amendment analysis]]) operates on a different axis — it is about what can be disclosed, not who orders the disclosure. The two reforms are analytically distinct.
	+
	+	===== Related on this site =====
	+
	+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 — current text, as amended]] — sections 12–17 carry overlays noting the 2019 amendment.
	+	* [[rules:start\|RTI Rules]].
	+	* [[rules:cic\|Central Information Commission regulations]].
	+	* [[blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
	+	* [[blog:economic-survey-2025-26-rti-reexamination\|Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination]].
	+	* [[important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
	+	* [[guide:guidelines-for-public-information-officer\|Guide for PIOs]].
	+	* [[guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|Guide for FAAs]].
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 13, 15, 16 (pre- and post-2019 text).
	+	- The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), notified 24 October 2019.
	+	- The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners) Rules, 2019.
	+	- //Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India//, Supreme Court of India, with subsequent directions on appointment transparency.
	+	- Parliamentary debates on the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed on =====
	+
	+	20 April 2026
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-amendment-2019 commissioner-tenure salary section-13 section-15 section-16 anjali-bhardwaj}}