Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts information whose publication has been expressly forbidden by any court or tribunal, or whose disclosure may constitute contempt of court. The exemption is specific — the PIO must identify the court order or the live proceeding that would be prejudiced by disclosure.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Trigger — a court or tribunal has expressly forbidden publication OR disclosure would constitute contempt.
• Requirement — PIO must cite the specific court order or show the contempt risk.
• Not enough — the mere pendency of a case is not §8(1)(b).
• Not enough — the record being filed in court is not §8(1)(b) unless disclosure breaches a court direction.
• Override — §8(2) public interest may displace; but courts have read §8(1)(b) as fairly absolute once the contempt standard is met.

Section 8(1) — Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, — > >(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

• Registrar General, High Court of Calcutta v. WBIC (Calcutta HC 2011) — Judicial administrative files not automatically §8(1)(b).
• In Re: Destruction of Old Records (Kerala HC 2014) — Pendency alone is insufficient for §8(1)(b).
• Sakal Papers v. Union of India (SC 1962 (cited)) — Free-press / free-information balance in press-related orders.
• Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC 2019) — Judicial administrative records are disclosable subject to §8 and §11 analysis.

Browse the full case-law database — 310+ rulings for more.

1. Locate the record and determine whether §8(1)(b) even plausibly applies.
2. Record specific reasons in writing linking the record to the statutory harm head.
3. Check §8(2) public-interest override and record the balancing.
4. Sever under §10 where non-exempt portions can be released.
5. Issue §11 notice if a third party's information is involved.
6. State the appeal route — 30-day First Appeal under §19(1) to the FAA.

• Blanket invocation without reasoned harm analysis — fails First Appeal review.
• Skipping §8(2) — public interest must be examined even on denial.
• Ignoring §10 severability — PIO must sever and release the non-exempt part.
• Generic labels (“sensitive”, “confidential”) — not a substitute for a specific §8(1)(b) finding.
• Out-of-date assertion — the harm trigger may have ceased; PIO must assess currently.

Q1. Is every sub judice matter §8(1)(b)?

No. The Act requires an express court restraint on publication or actual contempt risk — not mere pendency.

Q2. Can the High Court bar disclosure of a file the applicant seeks?

Yes, and such a direction squarely attracts §8(1)(b). The PIO must cite the order.

Q3. What about decided judgments?

Judgments are presumptively public. §8(1)(b) does not apply to pronounced judgments unless the court has ordered sealing.

Q4. Does §8(2) override §8(1)(b)?

In theory yes; in practice courts treat contempt-risk disclosures with extreme caution.

Q5. Can PIO rely on generic sub-judice language?

No. The PIO must identify a specific court order or articulate the specific contempt risk.

• Sibling exemption frameworks: §8(1)(a) · §8(1)(b) · §8(1)(c) · §8(1)(d) · §8(1)(e) · §8(1)(f) · §8(1)(g) · §8(1)(h) · §8(1)(i) · §8(1)(j)
• Procedure: §11 — Third Party procedure · PIO reply templates.
• Appeal review: FAA speaking-order guide.
• Full Act text: Section 8 of the RTI Act · Full Act with DPDP 2025 overlay.
• Landmark rulings: 310+ 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 — §8(1)(b), §8(2), §10, §11.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3), notified effective 14 November 2025.
• Supreme Court and High Court judgments cited above.
• CIC and State Information Commission decisions as indexed in our case-law database.

Last reviewed: 22 April 2026.