Facts. Class-12 student sought copy of his own evaluated answer script. CBSE refused, citing “examination secrecy”.

Holding. Evaluated answer sheets are “information” under Section 2(f); disclosable to the candidate. “Information” includes all records held by a public authority; exemptions must be narrowly construed.

Takeaway. Own-data is disclosable to self. Use Section 10 redaction for examiner identity. No blanket “secrecy” claim survives §2(f).

Facts. Applicant sought service records, APAR grading, vigilance clearance of a named officer.

Holding. Service records, APAR/ACR, disciplinary proceedings, transfers, promotions — all personal information under Section 8(1)(j). Disclosable only if larger public interest is demonstrated under Section 8(2).

Takeaway. The single most-cited SC anchor for service-record denials. Always pair with Section 8(2) balancing on the file.

Facts. Applicant sought file notings on a service-related decision.

Holding. File notings are “information” under Section 2(f). No blanket exclusion. Exemptions under Section 8 apply note-by-note, not to notings as a class.

Takeaway. Do not reject file-noting RTIs as a category. Each note is tested against Section 8.

Facts. Multiple applicants sought bank inspection reports, willful-defaulter lists, risk-assessment notes from RBI. RBI invoked Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary.

Holding. The regulator-regulated relationship is not fiduciary. Inspection reports and related materials are disclosable. “Economic interests of the State” exemption is narrow.

Takeaway. Section 8(1)(e) must meet the four-factor fiduciary test from Aditya Bandopadhyay. Regulatory supervision is not fiduciary trust.

Facts. RTI sought judges' asset declarations; Supreme Court CPIO refused.

Holding. The Office of the Chief Justice of India is a “public authority” under Section 2(h). Judges' asset declarations are “information” held by the authority. Section 8(1)(j) balancing applies — privacy and judicial independence do not create blanket secrecy.

Takeaway. Constitutional offices are not beyond RTI. The proportionality test from Puttaswamy applies. Record balancing in writing.

Facts. Whether co-operative societies registered under state law are “public authorities” under Section 2(h).

Holding. Mere registration under statute does not make a body a “public authority”. The test is substantially financed by government OR established by the Constitution / statute OR owned / controlled by government. Private co-operatives outside these thresholds are not covered.

Takeaway. Section 2(h) has precise criteria. Not every body receiving a state benefit is covered; apply the statutory test.

Facts. Applicant asked the PIO to interpret a court order and answer hypothetical legal questions.

Holding. RTI does not require public authorities to answer hypothetical or opinion-based questions; does not require creation of information that doesn't exist; and does not require interpretation of law.

Takeaway. “What would happen if…” and “please explain this order” are not valid RTI requests. Reply with factual record-availability.

Facts. Challenge to composition and powers of Information Commissions.

Holding. Commissions exercise quasi-judicial functions. Appointments must follow a transparent procedure. Commissioners must have requisite expertise. (Subsequent amendments in 2019 altered the framework; judgment's basic reasoning on quasi-judicial character stands.)

Takeaway. Appellate review under Section 19 is quasi-judicial. Written reasons and natural-justice principles apply at FAA and Commission stages.

Facts. Applicant sought model answers and instructions to examiners during an active ICAI evaluation cycle.

Holding. Material held during active evaluation is fiduciary under Section 8(1)(e). Post-evaluation disclosure may be considered on merits. The exemption has a temporal character.

Takeaway. Fiduciary protection for examination material is time-bound. Once the cycle closes, reapplications should be considered on merits.

Facts. Challenge to the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which anonymised political-party donor identities.

Holding. The scheme is unconstitutional; it violates the voter's right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The right to know the source of political funding is fundamental.

Takeaway. The right to information flows from Article 19(1)(a) — not merely from the RTI Act. Exemptions that undermine the core right to know can be struck down.

Pattern: `“… as held by the Supreme Court in [Case Name] ([Year]) [Volume] SCC [Page], [one-line ratio].”`

Example:

“The information sought falls within Section 8(1)(j) as held by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212, where the Court ruled that service records and APAR grading of government employees are personal information unless larger public interest is demonstrated.”

• Citing the lower-court ruling when the SC has overruled.
• Misquoting the case name (e.g., “Aditya Bandhyopadhyay” — the correct spelling is “Bandopadhyay”).
• Over-citing. Three citations per reply is the ceiling; one citation with precise ratio is better.
• Citing without reading. Over time, the ratio of some rulings has been refined by subsequent Benches; verify on indiankanoon.org.
• Treating obiter as binding. The ratio (core holding) binds; passing observations (obiter) persuade.

Q1. Can a PIO cite High Court rulings to overcome an SC ratio?
No. The SC's ratio is binding on all authorities and High Courts. HC can only elaborate.

Q2. Has any Supreme Court RTI ruling been overruled by a larger Bench?
None of the 10 above have been overruled. Refinements exist (e.g., Puttaswamy on privacy interacts with §8(1)(j)).

Q3. Where do I read the full judgments?
indiankanoon.org, sci.gov.in/judgments, and scobserver.in for curated summaries.

Q4. Do these rulings bind State Information Commissions?
Yes — the Supreme Court's interpretation of a Central Act binds every public authority in India.

Ten rulings, five thematic axes (information definition, privacy, fiduciary, constitutional offices, scope of public authority). Internalising these is the shortest path to legally sustainable PIO and FAA practice.

• 10 landmark High Court rulings
• How to cite case law in PIO replies
• 10 landmark CIC decisions
• PIO RTI reply guide
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• All citations verified against Supreme Court Cases reporter series.
• Cross-referenced on indiankanoon.org and scobserver.in.

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.