Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The exemption is time-bound: once the investigation concludes and charges are filed (or the matter is closed), §8(1)(h) ceases. The PIO must show a live impedance risk.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Covers — information that would impede live investigation, apprehension or prosecution.
• Time-bound — exemption ends when investigation concludes.
• Not automatic — PIO must show specific impedance, not a blanket “investigation pending” label.
• Concluded cases — closure reports, charge-sheets post-filing, historical investigations — disclosable with §8(1)(g) safety redactions.
• Applies to — police, CBI, ED, SEBI, NHAI vigilance, any agency.

Section 8(1) — Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, — > >(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — Foundational — §8(1)(h) narrowly construed; PIO must show specific impedance.
• CBI v. CPIO CBI (Delhi HC 2011) — FIRs are public; internal case files are §8(1)(h) during pendency.
• Adesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi HC 2014) — Post-decision of the investigation, §8(1)(h) ceases.
• State of UP v. Raj Narain (SC 1975 (cited)) — Public-interest disclosure vs investigation protection.

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

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• Out-of-date assertion — the harm trigger may have ceased; PIO must assess currently.

Q1. Is FIR §8(1)(h)?

No. FIRs are public records once registered. The investigation file that follows the FIR may be §8(1)(h) during pendency.

Q2. What about closed cases?

Closure reports and all associated files become disclosable on closure — subject to §8(1)(g) safety redactions.

Q3. Is a blanket “case pending” good enough?

No. The PIO must show specific, contemporaneous impedance.

Q4. Does §8(2) override §8(1)(h)?

Yes. Public interest in exposing cover-up, corruption, or procedural delay can displace the exemption.

Q5. Time limit?

The moment investigation concludes (charge-sheet or closure), §8(1)(h) ends.

• 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)(h), §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.