EXEMPTIONS

Exemption from disclosure of information

S.8
S. 8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to
give any citizen,—

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State,
relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of
law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of

Parliament or the State Legislature;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual

property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party,
unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,
unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or
physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or
assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security
purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of
Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of
Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of
which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has
been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions
specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which

has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the
appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or

a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the
exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may
allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the
protected interests.

8(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any
information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place,
occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made
under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that
section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period
of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall
be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.
-Section 8(3) imposes time limit on exemptions. Section 8(1) b, d, e, f, g, h, j are
time limited exemptions, which are not valid exemptions after 20 years from
the date of creation of the records.
-It is implied that Section 8(1) (a), (c), (j) are not time limited exemptions. This
means that only these three out of the ten exemption clauses are available,
even if the information is over 20 years.
Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases.

S.9. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public

Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access
would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the
State.
 EXCLUSION OF SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE
ORGANISATIONS
24. (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second
Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such
organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be
excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the
information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding
anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt
of request.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any
other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation
already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included
in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation
being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time
to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights
violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of
violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State
Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such
information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.
Reasons for rejection of requests for information must be
clearly provided (Section 8(1) of the RTI Act)

Dhananjay Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University (Decision No. CIC/ OK / A/

00163, dated 7.7.2006)
Facts: the applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and subsequent death of a
student in the University hospital due to alleged negligence of the doctors attending him. The appellant
was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the University saying that the information sought
could not be provided under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. No further reasons as to how the information
sought could not be provided under the RTI Act was given.
Judgement: quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act to deny the information without giving
any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly
amount to malafide denial of legitimate information.
-The public authority must provide reasons for rejecting the particular application. The Commission
further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for information was rejected according
to a particular provision of the Act would attract penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Reason for Claiming Exemptions

G.S. Gangadharappa vs. Senior Personnel Officer & PIO, Rail Wheel
Factory, Ministry of Railways, Decision NO. CIC / SG / A / 2009 / 000889
/ 3615, dated 08.06.2009.
Since Right to Information is a fundamental right of Citizens, where denial
has to be only on the basis of the exemptions under Section 8(1), it is
necessary to carefully explain the reasons of how any of the exemptions
apply, when a PIO wishes to deny information on the basis of the
exemptions. Merely quoting the Subsection of Section 8 is not adequate.
Giving information is the rule and denial the exception. In the absence of
any reasoning, the exemption under Section 8(1) is held to have been
applied without any basis.
Exemptions to be invoked after adequate
appreciation of Facts of the Case – Reasons to be
given
B.R. Manhas Vs Ministry of Home Affairs
-CIC observed PIO’s tendency to reject the application under Section 8 to
avoid superior authorities holding the disclosure against them. They want to play
safe
-PIO’s tend to leave the decision disclosure to CIC. Only if there is a direction
from CIC the information is provided
-CIC held that PIO’s apply their mind , duly analyse the material before them,
and then draw a conclusion about disclosure or non disclosure based upon a
cogent and objective analysis of evidence
CASE LAWS
EXEMPTION 1 –DISCLOSURE WOULD AFFECT
SECURITY,ECONOMIC INTERESTS, AND
RELATIONSHIP WITH FOREIGN STATE
◦ Kamal Anand Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CIC decision)
FACTS : Appellant sought Departmental Guidelines relating to scrutiny policy for
a non corporate assessee during the financial year 2006-07.
-The CPIO denied this under Section 8(1)(a) that it would prejudicially affect
economic interests of the state
-THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY – upheld CPIO decision – stated if detailed
guidelines are made public any unscrupulous taxpayer could adjust his
declaration of income to avoid verification by an income tax officer
SECOND APPEAL TO CIC – Appellant argued information sought pertains to
previous financial year and since that period was over , same could be
disclosed. Moreover stated scrutiny guidelines unofficially available on internet
- PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONTENDED : every year a large number of IT returns are filed by
income tax payer. These returns are to be checked by assessing officers only small
percentage is taken up for public scrutiny .
- IT Department issues guidelines for selection of cases for scrutiny for the use of the
assessing officers of the department.
- If the guidelines are made public- it is liable to be misused by some unscrupulous
taxpayers to evade tax as well
- CIC HELD
- It is certainly within the domain of concerned public authority , to decide and
determine whether disclosure would adversely affect economic interests of the
state or not
- Public authority at the highest level had analysed issue and had given considered
opinion that disclosure would impact the economic interests of the state.
- When denial is covered by an exemption clause under Section 8 of the RTI act, so
long as such application of exemption is based on objective criteria and is not
arrived in a arbitrary and mechanical manner , the commission does not intend to
interfere in such cases
EXEMPTION 2 : DISCLOSURE FORBIDDEN BY
COURT/TRIBUNAL Section 8 (1)(b)
KM Talera Vs Contonment Board Pune
◦ The commission held that there has been a serious error by respondents in
assuming that information in respect of sub-judice matters need not be
disclosed.
◦ The RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirement for sub judice
matters.
◦ Only exception sub judice matter is regarding what has been expressly
forbidden from disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute
contempt of court
 EXEMPTION 3: DISCLOSURE WOULD CAUSE BREACH
OF PRIVILAGE OF PARLIAMENT/STATE LEGISLATURE
8(1)(c)
◦ Priya Pal Bante Vs Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Fact-Appellant sought information on 105th report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions along
with action taken report.(ATR)
-The report contained the matter of Chakma Tribal Population of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram
State.
-While the report of committee was agreed to be provided ATR was denied stating that all documents
submitted to the committee are confidential unless they are laid down on the table of House or a
report thereon is presented in the house
- CIC Observed Section 8 1(c) – Prohibits disclosure leading to breach of privilege of parliament / state
legislature However it is qualified by the provisio to section 8
- Which reads as ‘ Provided that the information which can not be denied to parliament or a state
legislature shall not be denied to any person
Priya Pal Bante Vs Rajya Sabha Secretariat Continued…….
◦ However CIC in light of Parliamentary Procedure 53.6 h whaich stated that
- Proceedings of a Select Committee/ Joint Committee are to be treated as
confidential not to be mentioned in the House.
-Thus proceeding of a select committee are to be treated as confidential and
not to be disclosed even in the house unless committee decides to disclose the
same.
Held : Information sought by appellant has been withheld in accordance with
law
EXEMPTION 4 : DISCLOSURE WOULD HARM
COMPETITIVE POSITION OF THIRD PARTY 8(1)(d)
N. Ambarasan Vs. National Informatics centre
◦ The appellant a sotware developer sought certified copies of files/records pertaining to
the website/web based applications/software developed by NIC for Karnataka
government
◦ CPIO – NIC –refused disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act as software are
considered as intellectual property which can not be disclosed specially because the
appellant himself is a software developer.
◦ APPEAL TO CIC – Appellant argue that the document containing the software
information can not be patented hence not IP
◦ NIC argue software development done by them is an IP and disclosing it to any vendor
will jeopordise the competitive position of various state department.
◦ The commission upheld the application of Section 8 (1)(d)
 EXEMPTION 5: INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN FIDUCIARY
RELATIONSHIP S. 8 (1)(e)
Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
◦ whether a student’s right to information under The Act involves the right to request and evaluate his answer sheets and
take certified copies
◦ CBSE –Claim excemption under 8(1)(e)-re existed a fiduciary relationship and hence, came under the exemption
HELD :
◦ The Court observed that sitting in an examination wasn’t a service for a beneficiary such as lawyer-client or guardian-
minor which would create an expectation of confidentiality. There was thus, no fiduciary relationship between the
student and the examination body.
◦ With respect to the examiner, it was observed that there is no fiduciary relationship with the examination body, except
where the former has the papers for evaluation. After evaluation, no propriety rights continue. However, he is entitled
to not have his name disclosed to the student. The remainder of the evaluated answer sheets were to be made available
for inspection.
EXEMPTION 6 – INFORMATION RECEIVED IN CONFODENCE
FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 8(1)(f)
Arun Jaitley Vs. C.B.I
-Appellant had sought information regarding correspondence exchanged betweeen the crown
prosecution service of the United Kingdom, Interpol and CBI, advices received from expert counsels on
various issues relating to the freezing and defreezing of accounts of Ottavio Quattrochi and other ongoing
Investigations
-CBI Claimed exemption under 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(f) as those were privileged communications
-CIC upheld the decision of CBI – CBI had been investigating the case for nearly 16 years without much
success . Although the exemption was available , it would not be available after 20 years hence CBI was
asked to expedite the process.
EXEMPTION 7 DISCLOSURE WHICH WOULD ENDANGER
LIFE/ PERSONAL SAFETEY –S. 8 (1)(g)
Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police (F.No
CIC/AT/A/2006/00004, dated 30.06.2006)
Facts :The applicant had sought details regarding the progress of an
investigation of a case by the police.
Judgement: The CIC dismissed the appeal relating to the disclosure of
information. It ruled that the disclosure of information, in cases under
investigation by the police was exempted, according to the provisions of
Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It is justified not to disclose
information in cases of ongoing police investigations (which have not yet been
completed), because such a disclosure could hamper the investigation process
Documents pertaining to the on going CBI case (S. 8(1)(h) of the
RTI Act 2005)

A.L. Motwani vs. the CPIO, ITI Limited, Bangalore (F.No.

CIC/AD/A/2009/000109, dated 10.02.2009)
-applicant had sought documents pertaining to the on going CBI case.
-Judgement: CIC allowed the appeal and directed ITI Limited to provide the
information sought by the appellant.
-It ruled that since the charge sheet has already been submitted and the case is in
progress in the CBI Court, disclosing the documents asked for cannot in any way
impede the investigation process. The documents asked for by the requestor also do
not form the part of Court record and there is also no order of CBI Court restraining the
public authority from disclosure of information.
-Accordingly the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) are not attracted.
Disclosure of Police Diary is Exempted from Disclosure

Kuldeep Kumar Vs Commissioner of Police

- The appellant had sought date wise details of each and every investigational step
undertaken by the police to examine the suspects and others thoroughly.
- The police argued that the information sought formed part of police case diary and it
was a privileged document as held by Supreme Court
- The commission agreed with the appellate authority’s averment that disclosure of case
diary would have far reaching consequences in terms of the confidentiality of the
information received by the police and may even endanger the life of those who are
examined by police
Exemption 9- Cabinet Papers 8 (1)(i)

Sweety Kothary Vs Department of Legal Affairs

-The appellant sought recommendations of interview/selection board regarding selection of
Income tax appellate tribunal members for the year 2002-03.
-It was denied on the ground that names of the candidates selected by the selection
committee are approved by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet.
-The Proceedings of the selection committee were covered by Section 8(1)(i) of the Act
Commission Held:
-Stated the test which the first proviso of the Sub-Section 8(1)(i) stipulates for disclosure of
information is whether the decision making process is complete and over, and a decision has
been made.
-In this case deliberation of ACC – had been completed and decision was made
-Decision made by ACC was liable to be disclosed once the decision itself had been finalised
and was in public domain
Exemption -10 Personal Information 8 (1)(j)

G.R. Rawal Vs Director General of Income Tax

-Appellant sought information regarding tax payable as per decision of Settlement
Commission in the case of Winprolene Plastics and tax paid by the said company.
-However the same was denied under Section 8(1)(j). Stating that the payment of tax is a
personal matter , disclosure of which had no relationship to public activity or interest
-Disclosure would cause unwarranted intrusion in to privacy
Hence disclosure shall
- Have relationship to any public activity or interest
- Should not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual
Sh. Milap Choraria vs. CBDT
-the daughter-in-law of the applicant has filed criminal case against his son and
other family members under Section 498 of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and Domestic Violence Act.
-One of the ground in the FIR accused the family for demanding dowry valued
at about 50 lakhs.
- It is in this context that the appellate has requested for information relating to
year-wise income and expenditure shown by his daughter-in-law in her income
tax returns for the last few years. CPIO refused to disclose the information in
terms of Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Judgement:
-The appellant pleaded before the Commission that this information is required by him to defend himself
in the criminal case.
-The Commission held that the information sought by the applicant is a third party information and is
exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
-Further observed The appellant is not without remedy to protect himself from malicious prosecution as
he can move the appropriate Court and obtain orders for the production of IT Returns before the Court
which the Income Tax department is duty bound to do and decide to disclose or otherwise.
◦ Accordingly the appeal for disclosure was refused.