RTI exemptions

Also called: Section 8 of the RTI Act · Topic: Transparency, Accountability and e-Governance · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

RTI exemptions are the kinds of information that a public authority (a government body that must answer RTI requests) may refuse to give out. They are listed mainly in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, with further limits in s.9 and s.24.

Under the RTI Act, giving out information is the rule and refusing it is the exception. So exemptions decide where transparency stops and where secrecy, privacy or security take over.

Explanation

How the exemptions work

• Disclosure is the default. A refusal is valid only if the information fits one of the grounds listed in the Act.
• The Act limits disclosure in four ways:
• s.8(1): ten grounds for refusing information.
• s.9: information can be refused if supplying it would break the copyright of someone other than the State.
• s.24 with the Second Schedule: some organisations are kept outside the Act altogether.

• s.8(3): a time limit, after which most exemptions end.

• s.8(2) works the other way. It allows exempt information to be released when the public interest is strong enough.

The ten grounds under s.8(1)

• (a) Security and sovereignty. Information that would harm India's sovereignty and integrity, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests, or relations with a foreign State.
• (b) Court ban. Matters that a court or tribunal has expressly forbidden from being published.
• (c) Legislative privilege. Information whose release would break the privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature. Privilege means the special rights that protect the House's work.
• (d) Commercial confidence. Trade secrets and intellectual property whose release would hurt a third party's competitive position.

• It can still be released if the larger public interest needs it.

• (e) Fiduciary relationship. A relationship of trust, where one person holds another person's information for that person's benefit.

• It can still be released if the larger public interest needs it.

• (f) Foreign governments. Information received in confidence from a foreign government.

• (g) Safety. Information that would put someone's life or physical safety at risk, or reveal a confidential source who helps law enforcement or security.
• (h) Investigations. Information that would get in the way of an investigation, or of the arrest or prosecution of offenders.
• (i) Cabinet papers. These include records of the discussions of ministers and secretaries.

• The protection is not permanent. Once the decision is taken and the matter is over, the decision, the reasons for it and the material behind it must be made public.

• (j) Personal information. Since the DPDP Act, 2023, this covers any "information which relates to personal information" [1].

Limits on the exemptions

• The 20-year rule (s.8(3))
• Information about an event that happened 20 years or more before the request must be given.

• This rule does not apply to (a), (c) and (i) (security, legislative privilege and cabinet papers). These can stay secret for longer than 20 years.

• The public-interest override (s.8(2))

• A public authority may release information that is exempt under s.8(1), or protected by the Official Secrets Act, 1923, if the public interest in disclosure is greater than the harm to the protected interest.

• s.22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act and other laws wherever they conflict.

• Built-in public-interest tests

• Inside s.8(1), only (d) and (e) now have their own "larger public interest" test.
• Clause (j) lost its test in 2023.

Organisations kept outside the Act: s.24

• s.24(1): the Act does not apply to the intelligence and security organisations of the Central Government that are listed in the Second Schedule [3].
• Bodies on the list
• The 2005 list includes the IB, R&AW, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF and ITBP [3].
• Other listed bodies include the NTRO, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, SSB and SPG.

• The CBI was added in 2011.

• Changing the list: the Central Government can add or remove bodies by a notification in the Official Gazette [3].

• Exception (proviso): information about allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is still available [3].
• Corruption information follows the normal RTI process.

• Human-rights information needs approval from the Central Information Commission (CIC) and must be supplied within 45 days of the request.

• States (s.24(4)): a state government can exclude its own intelligence and security bodies by notification. The same corruption and human-rights exception applies to them.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits in the law: the exemptions are in the Right to Information Act, 2005, in s.8, s.9 and s.24 with the Second Schedule.
• The 2023 change to personal information
• The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, s.44(3) replaced s.8(1)(j) [1].
• The original clause (2005) exempted personal information only if:
  • releasing it had no link to any public activity or interest; or
  • releasing it would be an unwarranted invasion of the person's privacy.
• Even then, the officer could release it if the larger public interest justified it.
• The original clause also had a proviso: information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any person.
• The new clause exempts all personal information. The public-activity test and the clause's own public-interest test are gone. Critics say the Parliament proviso has been dropped too.

• When it started: the change took effect with the DPDP Rules, 2025, notified on 13–14 November 2025. The Rules give data fiduciaries (bodies that process personal data) an 18-month phased timeline to comply [2].

• The government's view (PIB, 2025)

• The amendment balances the right to information with the right to privacy recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) [1].

• It puts existing court reasoning into law. It does not ban disclosure, and s.8(2) remains fully in force [1].

• Landmark cases

• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011, SC)
  • Evaluated answer sheets count as "information".
  • An examining body does not hold them in a fiduciary relationship, so the fiduciary exemption is read narrowly.
  • The Court also warned that careless and impractical demands could clog the administration.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012, SC)
  • An official's service record, assets and income-tax returns are personal information under s.8(1)(j).
  • A third party can get them only if a larger public interest is shown.
• RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015, SC)
  • The RBI has no fiduciary relationship with the banks it regulates.
  • It must disclose its inspection findings, because its duty is to the public and to depositors.

• The pattern: courts widened disclosure for exams and banking regulation. They narrowed it for officials' personal records. Deshpande's caution later shaped the government's case for the 2023 amendment.

• Contested areas

• Political parties
  • On 3 June 2013, a CIC full bench held six national parties (INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP) to be public authorities under s.2(h) [4].
  • The parties did not comply.
  • The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013 to reverse the order lapsed [4].
  • The ECI agrees with the CIC that parties fall under RTI [5].
• PM CARES Fund
  • The PMO treats the fund as a public charitable trust, not a public authority.
  • Petitions in the Delhi High Court argue that it is "State" under Article 12.

Don't confuse with

• s.8(1) exemption vs. s.24 exclusion: s.8(1) protects a type of information, whatever body holds it. s.24 keeps whole organisations in the Second Schedule outside the Act, except for corruption and human-rights information.
• s.9 vs. s.8(1)(j): s.9 is about copyright held by someone other than the State. It has nothing to do with personal privacy, which falls under s.8(1)(j).
• s.8(2) override vs. built-in public-interest tests: s.8(2) applies to all s.8(1) grounds and even to the Official Secrets Act. The built-in tests appear only inside clauses (d) and (e).
• Cabinet papers (i) vs. decisions: the discussions stay protected, and the 20-year rule does not apply to them. Decisions, the reasons for them and the material behind them must be made public once the matter is over.

Prelims Hooks

• The 20-year rule (s.8(3)) does not apply to s.8(1) (a), (c) and (i): security and sovereignty, legislative privilege and cabinet papers.
• Only (d) commercial confidence and (e) fiduciary relationship now have their own "larger public interest" test inside s.8(1).
• DPDP Act, 2023, s.44(3) amended RTI s.8(1)(j) [1]. The change came into force with the DPDP Rules, 2025, notified in November 2025 [2].
• s.24 + Second Schedule: the CBI was added in 2011. Human-rights information from excluded bodies needs CIC approval and is due within 45 days [3].
• Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): answer sheets can be disclosed. Girish Deshpande (2012): income-tax returns and service records are personal information. Jayantilal Mistry (2015): the RBI is not a fiduciary of banks.
• Trap: s.8(2) allows disclosure despite the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and s.22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect. The Official Secrets Act does not override RTI.

Mains Points

• Privacy vs. transparency after the DPDP Act
• The government says s.44(3) only puts Puttaswamy into law, and that s.8(2) still allows disclosure [1].
• Critics (NCPRI and others) say a blanket exemption flips the burden.
  • Social audits (checks by villagers of public-scheme records) depend on beneficiary lists and MGNREGA muster rolls (attendance and wage records). These records contain names and could now be refused.
  • Officials' assets, degrees and service conduct become harder to examine.

• Middle path: restore the public-activity test and the Parliament proviso, and apply Puttaswamy's proportionality test case by case.

• Excluded agencies and the gap at the top

• Keeping security bodies out of RTI protects their operations. But adding the CBI (2011), an investigating agency, was criticised.
• The corruption and human-rights proviso is the main safeguard, so it needs strict enforcement.

• Political parties remain outside RTI in practice: the CIC 2013 order is unenforced and the 2013 Bill lapsed [4]. So does the PM CARES Fund. Both have links to public money.

• Making the exemptions fair in practice

• Officials use Aditya Bandopadhyay's warning to ask for a filter on "vexatious" (troublesome, repeated or very large) requests.
• Activists reply that most of the burden comes from weak s.4 proactive disclosure (information that authorities should publish without being asked). They fear a loose filter could be used to block uncomfortable requests.
• Reforms: strengthen s.4 disclosure, fill information-commission vacancies and use s.8(2) actively.

Related concepts

• Organisations excluded from RTI
• Public interest override
• Personal information exemption

Read more

• Exemptions and the contested frontiers of RTI