Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(supreme court rti rulings,landmark rti supreme court,rti case law india,aditya bandopadhyay,girish deshpande,rk jain uoi,jayantilal mistry,puttaswamy,thalappalam,rti supreme court judgments)&metatag-description=(Ten landmark Supreme Court rulings on the RTI Act, 2005 that every PIO and FAA must know — with facts, holdings, and practical takeaways.)}}
+====== 10 Landmark Supreme Court Rulings Every PIO Must Know ======
+{{ :social:auto:pio-supreme-court-rulings.png?direct&1200 |10 Supreme Court RTI rulings — RTI Wiki}}
+{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+<WRAP info>
+**Why this matters.** The Supreme Court's RTI jurisprudence is compact but decisive. Ten rulings between 2010 and 2024 cover nearly every major interpretive question a PIO or FAA encounters. A reply that cites the right ruling is rarely overturned.
+</WRAP>
+===== 1. //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) 8 SCC 497 =====
+**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).
+===== 2. //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC// (2013) 1 SCC 212 =====
+**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.
+===== 3. //R.K. Jain v. Union of India// (2013) 14 SCC 1 =====
+**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.
+===== 4. //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry// (2016) 3 SCC 525 =====
+**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.
+===== 5. //CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal// (2020) 5 SCC 481 =====
+**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.
+===== 6. //Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala// (2013) 16 SCC 82 =====
+**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.
+===== 7. //Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer// (2010) 2 SCC 1 =====
+**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.
+===== 8. //Namit Sharma v. Union of India// (2013) 10 SCC 359 =====
+**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.
+===== 9. //Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak Satya// (2011) 8 SCC 781 =====
+**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.
+===== 10. //Association for Democratic Reforms v. UoI// — Electoral Bonds (2024) =====
+**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.
+===== How to cite these rulings in PIO replies =====
+**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."//
+===== Common mistakes in citing =====
+  * **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.
+===== FAQs =====
+**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.
+===== Conclusion =====
+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.
+===== Related reading =====
+  * [[:pio-high-court-rulings|10 landmark High Court rulings]]
+  * [[:pio-citing-case-law|How to cite case law in PIO replies]]
+  * [[:landmark-cic-decisions|10 landmark CIC decisions]]
+  * [[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI reply guide]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO & FAA knowledge base]]
+===== Sources =====
+  * All citations verified against Supreme Court Cases reporter series.
+  * Cross-referenced on ''indiankanoon.org'' and ''scobserver.in''.
+----
+//Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.//
+{{tag>pio supreme-court case-law rulings rti-act-2005}}

Was this helpful? — views