Holding. Section 8(1)(h) requires specific impedance to investigation; cannot be invoked as a class. Severable factual information unrelated to the live investigation must be disclosed.

Takeaway for PIOs. Do not reject FIR details or preliminary-enquiry records wholesale under §8(1)(h). Identify the specific prejudicial element; release the rest.

Holding. Reaffirmed the quasi-judicial character of Information Commissions. Subsequently travelled to the SC.

Holding. Published PhD theses held by universities are public records under RTI. University cannot claim copyright-based exemption under Section 9 against disclosure.

Takeaway. Academic output funded or certified by a public university is disclosable. Coverage of our dedicated page: Delhi HC PhD theses ruling.

Holding. Procedural compliance with Section 11 is mandatory. Failure to issue third-party notice is fatal to the PIO's denial.

Takeaway. Section 11 notice cannot be skipped even when the PIO believes disclosure is obvious.

Holding. Municipal / metropolitan authorities cannot claim commercial-confidence blanket (§8(1)(d)) against routine land-allotment and tender records. Post-decisional tender material is disclosable.

Takeaway. §8(1)(d) during live bid; disclosure after award. See also tender RTI playbook.

Holding. Public authorities cannot charge non-statutory inspection fees; Rs. 5 per hour (after first hour free) is the ceiling.

Takeaway. Stick to the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012 schedule.

Holding. A public-sector undertaking undertaking government work is a “public authority” regardless of corporate form. RTI applies in full.

Takeaway. Corporate form does not immunise from RTI where the body is substantially financed or controlled by government.

Holding. Tamil Nadu PSC answer sheets and evaluation data are within RTI scope, following Aditya Bandopadhyay. Examiner identity protected; candidate's marks not.

Takeaway. State PSCs cannot rely on their own rules to deny what the Central Act grants.

Holding. State Information Commission orders cannot be overridden by executive fiat; enforcement is through writ proceedings.

Takeaway. Where SIC directs disclosure, non-compliance is contempt-level. Do not stall on executive advice.

Holding. Panchayat-level records — muster rolls, beneficiary lists, fund releases — fall squarely within §4(1)(b) proactive disclosure.

Takeaway. Publish first, reply to RTI second. Reduces caseload and builds citizen trust.

Holding. Public-sector undertakings cannot claim confidentiality of their own board decisions post-implementation. Section 8(1)(d) is narrow.

Takeaway. PSU decision-making records are disclosable after the decision implements.

Holding. Municipal corporation ward-level spending and contract details must be proactively published. Failure attracts §19(8)(a)(iii) direction.

Takeaway. Urban-local-body RTIs are increasingly resolved by Section 4 enforcement, not individual replies.

Holding. SIC non-functionality is a structural problem that the Court has flagged in repeated orders. Public authorities must nevertheless reply timely.

Takeaway. PIO cannot rely on SIC backlog as a defence. The Act's obligations run regardless of appellate capacity.

Holding. Sub-registrar records are public documents; RTI applies notwithstanding the Registration Act's own disclosure regime.

Takeaway. Registration Act privileges don't override RTI; apply Section 10 for third-party privacy if needed.

• Allahabad HC — UP PSU records generally within RTI; state-rule-based denials are narrow.
• Rajasthan HC — on beneficiary lists of welfare schemes: disclosable under §4(1)(b)(xii).
• Punjab & Haryana HC — on police records: §8(1)(h) temporal; disclosable after investigation closes.

• Know your jurisdiction. Cite the HC that supervises your public authority.
• Don't cite across jurisdictions as if binding — only the jurisdictional HC binds. Other HCs are persuasive.
• Cite the SC first. Where SC and HC agree, cite SC; HC as reinforcement.
• Update periodically. HC interpretations evolve; our weekly roundup tracks significant rulings.

• Citing an overturned HC ruling.
• Treating HC of one State as binding on another State.
• Ignoring SC overlap — always check whether the SC has ruled.
• Using HC obiter as if it were the ratio.

Q1. Are HC rulings binding on Central public authorities?
Only within the HC's jurisdiction for the specific subject matter. Across India, only SC rulings bind.

Q2. Can a PIO in one State cite another State's HC to support disclosure?
Persuasive, not binding. Cite along with the local HC or SC if available.

Q3. Where do I find the full text?
indiankanoon.org, livelaw.in, and scobserver.in for curated briefs.

High Court rulings fill the interpretive gap between the Act's text and the Supreme Court's sparse intervention. For day-to-day PIO/FAA work, knowing 2-3 local HC rulings per exemption is usually sufficient.

• 10 landmark Supreme Court rulings
• 10 landmark CIC decisions
• How to cite case law
• PIO RTI reply guide
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Kerala, Karnataka, Calcutta High Court RTI decisions.
• Cross-referenced on indiankanoon.org.

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.