Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts information containing commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property whose disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. The exemption is subject to the public-interest override in §8(1)(d) itself — the PIO must disclose if the larger public interest warrants it.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Covers — commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property.
• Test — would disclosure harm the competitive position of the third party?
• In-built override — larger public interest within §8(1)(d) itself lets PIO disclose.
• Post-award — tender files typically open up after contract award.
• §11 trigger — third-party notice is almost always required before disclosure.

Section 8(1) — Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, — > >(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;

• Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (Delhi HC 2010) — Public-interest override within §8(1)(d) is a real test.
• PIO Reliance v. CIC (Bombay HC 2015) — Third-party commercial confidence needs §11 process.
• Cognizance of Vendor Tender Files (CIC Full Bench 2018) — Post-award tender files are disclosable as a general rule.
• Secy. Dept. of Posts v. BS Dogra (Delhi HC 2012) — Internal cost analyses of a private party are protected; bid-evaluation matrix is disclosable.

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

1. Locate the record and determine whether §8(1)(d) 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)(d) finding.
• Out-of-date assertion — the harm trigger may have ceased; PIO must assess currently.

Q1. Are tender documents confidential?

Before award, typically yes (process integrity). Post-award, they open up — with narrow redaction for trade secrets.

Q2. Does §8(1)(d) have its own public-interest override?

Yes. The sub-clause itself says disclosure may be ordered if the public interest so warrants. The PIO must record reasoning.

Q3. Is §11 mandatory?

Practically always, because §8(1)(d) protects a third party's information. §11 five-day notice must be issued.

Q4. Can a public authority claim its own commercial confidence?

Only rarely — §8(1)(d) protects competitive position of others; government bodies generally have no such competitive position.

Q5. What about PPP concession agreements?

Courts have consistently directed disclosure post-award with commercial-sensitive redactions.

• 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)(d), §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.