Exemptions and the contested frontiers of RTI

Detail

1. Why exemptions exist

• RTI exemption: a type of information that a public authority does not have to give out, even though the right to information is the general rule.
• Under the RTI Act, 2005, giving out information is the rule. Refusing is the exception, and the exception must fit one of the listed grounds.
• The Act has four kinds of limits:
• s.8(1): ten grounds for refusing information;
• s.9: third-party copyright;
• s.24 with the Second Schedule: whole organisations are kept outside the Act;

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

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

2. The ten exemptions under s.8(1)

Clause	What may be withheld	Public-interest test built into the clause?	Lapses after 20 years?
(a)	Information that would harm India's sovereignty and integrity, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests, or relations with a foreign State	No	No
(b)	Matters a court or tribunal has expressly forbidden from being published	No	Yes
(c)	Information whose release would be a breach of the privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature (legislative privilege: special rights that protect the House's work)	No	No
(d)	Commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property that would hurt a third party's competitive position	Yes: released if the larger public interest needs it	Yes
(e)	Information held in a fiduciary relationship (a relationship of trust, where one person holds another's information for that person's benefit)	Yes: released if the larger public interest needs it	Yes
(f)	Information received in confidence from a foreign government	No	Yes
(g)	Information that would endanger someone's life or physical safety, or reveal a confidential source helping law enforcement or security	No	Yes
(h)	Information that would impede an investigation, or the arrest or prosecution of offenders	No	Yes
(i)	Cabinet papers, including records of the deliberations of ministers and secretaries	No. But decisions, the reasons for them and the material behind them must be made public once the decision is taken and the matter is over	No
(j)	Personal information (see section 5 below)	Removed by the DPDP Act, 2023	Yes

• s.9: copyright. Information can be refused if supplying it would infringe the copyright of someone other than the State.
• s.8(3): the 20-year rule.
• Information about an event that happened 20 years or more before the request must be given.
• This rule does not apply to clauses (a), (c) and (i). These can stay secret beyond 20 years.

3. The public-interest override: s.8(2)

• Public-interest override: a public authority may release information even if it 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.
• It works together with s.22. Under s.22, the RTI Act has overriding effect over the OSA and other laws wherever they conflict.
• In practice, s.8(2) is the last safety valve. It became more important after the 2023 change to s.8(1)(j) (section 5 below).

4. Organisations excluded from RTI: s.24 and the Second Schedule

• s.24(1): the Act does not apply to the intelligence and security organisations set up by the Central Government and listed in the Second Schedule [4].
• Bodies on the list:
• The 2005 list includes the IB, R&AW, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF and ITBP [4].
• 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 organisations by a notification in the Official Gazette [4].

• Exception to the exclusion (proviso): information about allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not excluded [4].
• Corruption information follows the normal RTI process.

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

• States: under s.24(4), a state government can notify its own intelligence and security bodies to be excluded. The same corruption and human-rights exception applies to them.

5. Personal information and the DPDP amendment

The original s.8(1)(j) (2005–2025)

• Personal information exemption: protection for information about an identifiable individual.
• The original clause exempted personal information only if:
• releasing it had no relationship to any public activity or interest; or

• releasing it would cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy.

• Built-in balancing test: even then, the information officer or appellate authority could release it if the larger public interest justified disclosure.

• Parliament proviso: "information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."

The 2023 change

• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, s.44(3) replaced the clause. It now reads: "information which relates to personal information" [2].
• Effect:
• Any personal information is now exempt. The public-activity and unwarranted-invasion tests are gone.
• The clause's own public-interest test is gone.
• Critics read the Parliament proviso as dropped too. On that reading, s.8(2) is the only remaining route to disclosure.

Commencement

• The change took effect with the DPDP Rules, 2025, notified on 13–14 November 2025 [3].
• The Rules give data fiduciaries (bodies that process personal data) an 18-month phased compliance timeline [3].

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) [2].
• It puts existing court reasoning into law and avoids conflict between the two Acts [2].
• It does not ban disclosure. Personal information must be weighed carefully before release [2].
• s.8(2) remains fully in force [2].

The critics' view (NCPRI and others)

• Social audits (checks by villagers of public-scheme records) depend on beneficiary lists and MGNREGA muster rolls (attendance and wage records). These contain names, so officials could now refuse them.
• Officials' assets, educational degrees and service conduct may become harder to scrutinise.
• Weighing the public interest moves from a duty inside the clause to an optional override under s.8(2).

6. Balancing case law

Case (year)	Question	Holding
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011, SC)	Can students see their evaluated answer sheets?	Yes. Evaluated answer sheets are "information". An examining body does not hold them in a fiduciary relationship, so the fiduciary exemption is read narrowly. The Court also warned that indiscriminate and impractical demands could clog administration and should not bury officials.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012, SC)	Can a third party get an official's service record, assets and income-tax returns?	No, by default. These are personal information under s.8(1)(j). They can be released only if the larger public interest is shown.
RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015, SC)	Can the RBI refuse bank-inspection reports as "fiduciary"?	No. The RBI has no fiduciary relationship with the banks it regulates. It must disclose inspection findings, because its duty is to the public and depositors.

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

7. Contested frontiers

(a) Political parties

• CIC full bench order of 3 June 2013:
• Six national parties were held to be public authorities under s.2(h): INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP [5]. A public authority is a body that must answer RTI requests.

• The grounds were indirect public funding (cheap land and buildings, tax exemptions, free airtime) and the public nature of their work.

• The parties' response: they did not comply and appointed no information officers.

• RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013:
• It was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 12 August 2013 to remove political parties from the definition of public authority, retrospectively from 3 June 2013 [5].
• It was sent to a Standing Committee on 5 September 2013, which reported on 17 December 2013 [5].
• Its justification was that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 already ensure transparency, and that RTI would hamper parties' internal working [5].

• The Bill lapsed [5].

• Election Commission: a PIB release records that the ECI agrees with the CIC that political parties fall under RTI [6].

• Current status: a PIL asking the Supreme Court to enforce the CIC order is still pending (status should be checked against the latest orders).
• The electoral bonds judgment (2024) is covered in the electoral-reforms note.

(b) The PM CARES Fund

• The PMO treats the fund as a public charitable trust, not a "public authority" under s.2(h). So it does not answer RTI requests.
• Petitions in the Delhi High Court challenge this. They argue the fund is "State" under Article 12 because of its official name, government emblem and links with officials.
• Status: these petitions are pending (check the latest position).

(c) Weak enforcement

• Pendency: large backlogs of second appeals and complaints before the CIC and state information commissions mean long waits.
• Delays: an RTI reply is due within 30 days, or within 48 hours if a person's life or liberty is at stake. The appeal stage often takes much longer, which weakens these limits.
• Vacancies: commissions without a Chief or with few members cannot clear their cases.

(d) Violence against RTI users

• Civil-society trackers count 100+ RTI users killed since 2005, plus many more assaulted and harassed. Most were exposing local corruption (land, mining, scheme funds).
• The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 is meant to protect people who report wrongdoing. Its weak use leaves this gap open.

(e) The "vexatious applications" debate

• One side: officials cite Aditya Bandopadhyay's warning about frivolous, repeated or very large requests. They seek limits on the number of questions or a "vexatious" filter.
• Other side: activists reply that most "burden" comes from poor suo motu disclosure under s.4, meaning information authorities should publish on their own without being asked. A vexatious filter could be used to block uncomfortable requests.

Prelims Hooks

• The exemptions not covered by the 20-year rule (s.8(3)) are s.8(1)(a), (c) and (i): security/sovereignty, legislative privilege and cabinet papers.
• Only (d) commercial confidence and (e) fiduciary relationship carry their own "larger public interest" test inside s.8(1). The 2023 amendment removed it from (j).
• s.8(2) allows disclosure "notwithstanding" the Official Secrets Act, 1923 if the public interest is greater than the harm. s.22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect.
• s.9 is about third-party copyright, not personal privacy.
• s.24 + Second Schedule: the CBI was added in 2011. Corruption and human-rights information is still available, and human-rights information needs CIC approval and is due within 45 days.
• DPDP Act, 2023, s.44(3) amended RTI s.8(1)(j). It came into force with the DPDP Rules, 2025 (notified November 2025).
• Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): answer sheets are disclosable. Girish Deshpande (2012): IT returns and service records are personal information. Jayantilal Mistry (2015): the RBI is not a fiduciary of banks.
• The CIC (3 June 2013) named six national parties as public authorities. The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013 to reverse this lapsed.

Mains Points

• Privacy vs. transparency after the DPDP Act:
• The government says s.44(3) only codifies Puttaswamy and that s.8(2) still allows disclosure.
• Critics say a blanket exemption flips the burden. Social audits, muster rolls and officials' asset details now depend on an officer choosing to use s.8(2).

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

• The accountability gap at the top:

• Political parties (CIC 2013 order unenforced, 2013 Bill lapsed, PIL pending) and the PM CARES Fund remain outside RTI despite links to public money.

• Counter-argument: parties already report to the ECI and the income-tax authorities, and RTI could expose internal strategy.

• Excluded agencies and the corruption proviso: keeping security bodies out of RTI protects 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.

• Making RTI work in practice:
• Fill commission vacancies on time and cut pendency.
• Strengthen s.4 proactive disclosure to reduce repeat requests.
• Protect RTI users through the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
• Resist a loose "vexatious" filter that could become a tool for refusing information.