Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts information whose disclosure would endanger life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information given in confidence for law-enforcement or security purposes. The exemption protects witnesses, informants, and persons whose identity — once disclosed — would attract retaliation.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Covers — endangerment of life or physical safety, OR identification of confidential source of law-enforcement / security information.
• Mandatory — once the PIO establishes the risk, the exemption is near-absolute.
• Standard — a real, not fanciful, risk.
• Witnesses — protected witnesses and informants squarely within.
• Whistleblowers — protection under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 maps to §8(1)(g).

Section 8(1) — Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, — > >(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — Exemption must be established by PIO — cannot be presumed.
• Director, IB v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (SC 2019) — §24 / §8(1)(g) interplay for intelligence-source protection.
• Whistleblowers Protection Authority Matters (CIC 2016) — §8(1)(g) absolute protection for identified whistleblowers.

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

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• Out-of-date assertion — the harm trigger may have ceased; PIO must assess currently.

Q1. How is risk assessed?

The PIO must record specific reasons showing why disclosure would endanger life, safety or source identity. Mere assertion is not enough.

Q2. Does §8(2) override §8(1)(g)?

In principle yes, but courts have treated safety-risk disclosures with extreme reluctance.

Q3. Can a public servant's identity be denied under §8(1)(g)?

Generally no — public servants in normal roles are identifiable. Exception: covert operations personnel.

Q4. Whistleblower identity?

Absolutely protected — statutory plus §8(1)(g).

Q5. What if risk has subsided over time?

PIO should re-assess. Aged records may lose the risk trigger; descendants may still be affected.

• 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)(g), §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.