Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 gives the Act overriding effect on the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and on anything inconsistent in any other law in force. A six-line provision, it is a constitutional-grade override: the RTI right to information trumps colonial-era secrecy law and any State statute that attempts to displace disclosure.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Effect — RTI Act, 2005 prevails over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and anything inconsistent in any other law in force.
• Scope — both Central and State laws are subject to §22.
• Mechanism — where two laws cover the same ground and are inconsistent, the RTI provision governs.
• Limit — §22 does not override the Constitution or the §24 Second Schedule exemption itself.
• Result — confidentiality claims grounded in OSA 1923 / state secrecy laws cannot defeat RTI disclosure.

Section 22: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

• State of Karnataka v. Nagesh B. (SC 2024) — Karnataka Public Security Act overridden by §22 to the extent inconsistent with RTI disclosure.
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — OSA 1923 cannot be invoked to block RTI unless the record attracts §8 exemption independently.
• CBI v. CPIO CBI (Delhi HC 2011) — §22 does not override §24 Second Schedule — separate exemption regime.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (SC 1981 (cited)) — Foundational — executive privilege and disclosure balance under constitutional principles.

Browse the full case-law database — 362 curated rulings for more.

• Blanket invocation without a specific statutory anchor and reasoning.
• Skipping public-interest balancing under §8(2) where an override is plausible.
• Generic “sensitive” labels instead of the precise clause.
• Missing 30-day clock tracking — §7(1) drives downstream appeals.
• No severance attempt under §10 where parts of the record are disclosable.

Q1. Does §22 override the Constitution?

No. The Act is a statute; constitutional provisions prevail over any statute, including §22.

Q2. Does §22 override §24?

No — §24 is within the RTI Act itself. §22 overrides OTHER laws, not its own internal provisions.

Q3. Can a State legislature pass a law that defeats RTI?

Only to the extent consistent with §22 and the fundamental right to information recognised in Article 19(1)(a). Any inconsistency is overridden.

Q4. Does §22 make OSA 1923 redundant?

Not redundant — OSA still applies to national-security prosecutions. But its confidentiality label cannot defeat an RTI disclosure unless §8 independently applies.

Q5. Does §22 help against a High Court privacy order?

Court orders enjoy their own legal status; §22 is about inconsistent “laws”, not court orders. Consider §8(1)(b) for court-restraint scenarios.

• Sibling framework pages: §19(1) First Appeal Guide · §19(3) Second Appeal · §20 Penalty · §22 Override · §24 Exempt Bodies
• Procedure side: PIO Reply Guide · FAA Speaking-Order Guide
• §8 exemption deep-dives: §8(1)(j) · §8(1)(e) · §8(1)(h) · §8(1)(i)
• Full Act text: RTI Act with DPDP 2025 overlay
• Landmark rulings: 362 curated RTI cases

• PIO / FAA Knowledge Base (hub)
• All 10 grounds for RTI rejection
• Appellate review checklist
• RTI Glossary — 40 essential terms

• Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, §44(3) — notified 14 November 2025.
• Supreme Court and High Court judgments cited above.
• Central Information Commission and State Information Commission decisions, as indexed in our case-law database.

Last reviewed: 22 April 2026.