Part of the PIO / FAA knowledge base. See also Bombay HC rulings and Kerala HC rulings.

Madras HC handles large volumes of RTI appeals, particularly from universities, co-operative institutions, and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Its rulings on answer-script disclosure (pre- and post- Aditya Bandopadhyay) and Section 11 procedural discipline are among the country's most detailed.

• Ratio. Answer-scripts are disclosable as per Aditya Bandopadhyay; model answers and examiner-identity remain protected under §8(1)(e).
• PIO takeaway. For a PSC, the answer-script is open on request; the evaluator's identity is not.

• Ratio. Aided institutions that are substantially financed by the State are public authorities under §2(h).
• PIO takeaway. Financial-control test applies; aided colleges cannot claim private-body status.

• Ratio. Section 11 notice to a third party cannot be dispensed with when personal records are involved; procedural compliance is mandatory.
• PIO takeaway. The Section 11 procedure is not optional — skipping it is grounds to set aside the PIO order.

• Ratio. Inspection reports prepared by public authorities in regulatory capacity are subject to §8(1)(h) only during pendency; after action, they become disclosable.
• PIO takeaway. “Investigation pending” ceases to be a §8(1)(h) ground after closure; new reasoning is required then.

• Ratio. A PIO's blanket refusal citing voluminous data fails §7(9); the PIO must offer inspection instead.
• PIO takeaway. For voluminous requests, propose inspection and certified copies on identified pages; don't reject wholesale.

• Ratio. University governance records — syndicate, senate, academic council minutes — are public-authority records; blanket commercial-confidence ground is unavailable.
• PIO takeaway. For universities, governance minutes are disclosable; specific agenda items may be severed under §10.

• Ratio. Banking customer information is governed by §8(1)(e) fiduciary relationship; however, regulatory audit reports are distinct and subject to higher disclosure.
• PIO takeaway. Customer data — presumptive exemption. Audit / RBI-inspection reports — distinct analysis.

• Ratio. Application of Aditya Bandopadhyay and Shaunak Satya to Central and State services; scored marks, category-wise cut-offs always disclosable.
• PIO takeaway. Mark-sheets and cut-offs are baseline disclosures; resisting them is futile on appeal.

• Ratio. A PIO cannot dismiss queries as “vague” when the applicant has clearly identified the record; if the question is ambiguous, §6(3) requires guidance, not denial.
• PIO takeaway. Before citing vagueness, engage with the applicant to clarify — §6(3) is a positive duty.

• Ratio. State IC's orders that substitute reasoning without hearing the PIO violate natural justice; the PIO has a right to be heard during second appeals.
• PIO takeaway. The PIO's right-to-be-heard at the SIC is procedural; orders obtained ex-parte are fragile.

1. “The Madras High Court in TNPSC applied Aditya Bandopadhyay — answer-scripts are open; evaluator identity is protected.”
2. “In C. Muniyappan, the Madras High Court held that Section 11 notice to third parties is mandatory — skipping it is grounds to set aside the PIO order.”
3. “In S. Venkatesan, the Madras High Court required inspection offers instead of §7(9) blanket denials for voluminous requests.”

• In First Appeal, cite C. Muniyappan when a PIO denied a record without §11 notice.
• In Second Appeal, cite S. Venkatesan to defeat a §7(9) blanket denial.
• Against universities, University of Madras opens syndicate/senate minutes.

• Reading Chairman, Indian Bank as closing all banking data — it preserves regulatory audit reports.
• Misapplying S. Muthukumarasamy — the §8(1)(h) ground fails only after closure, not during active investigation.
• Quoting Ramanand Tyagi without cross-reference to Aditya Bandopadhyay — the SC authority is primary.

• PIO / FAA knowledge base
• How to cite case law
• Bombay HC rulings
• Kerala HC rulings
• Karnataka HC rulings

• Madras High Court judgements (India Kanoon / official portal)
• Tamil Nadu State Information Commission annual reports
• RTI Act, 2005

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.