Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts information received in confidence from a foreign Government. The exemption protects international comity and diplomatic practice. It does not protect information that is merely about foreign relations — only records received from a foreign State in confidence.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Covers — records received in confidence from a foreign Government.
• Key words — received in confidence and foreign Government.
• Not covered — MEA's internal analysis; concluded treaties already published; public diplomatic statements.
• PIO must show — the confidence condition at the time of receipt.
• Override — §8(2) public interest applies but rarely displaces international confidence.

Section 8(1) — Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, — > >(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

• Ministry of External Affairs v. CIC (Ambedkar letters) (Delhi HC 2013) — Historic diplomatic correspondence — confidence continues unless waived.
• CIC on India-US civil nuclear cooperation file (CIC 2011) — §8(1)(f) protects communications from US authorities; India's own notings do not automatically qualify.
• Aditya Kumar v. MEA (CIC 2019) — Concluded treaties published in Gazette are disclosable.

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

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• Out-of-date assertion — the harm trigger may have ceased; PIO must assess currently.

Q1. Is everything handled by MEA §8(1)(f)?

No. Only records received in confidence from a foreign Government qualify. MEA's own analysis may be §8(1)(i).

Q2. Does a published treaty attract §8(1)(f)?

No. Once published it is disclosable. Negotiating drafts may still be confidential.

Q3. What if the foreign Government waives confidence?

The exemption ends with the waiver. PIO can seek a clarification.

Q4. Can §8(2) override §8(1)(f)?

Yes in principle, but Indian courts are very cautious — respecting international comity.

Q5. How old does a record have to be to lose §8(1)(f)?

No fixed period. The test is whether the original confidence still attaches; 25 to 30 years is a common threshold.

• 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)(f), §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.