Exemptions and Non-Disclosure Clauses in the RTI Act, 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is often called the sunlight law because it forces government decisions into public view. Yet even sunlight needs shade in certain places. Not every file can be opened, not every record can be handed over, and not every question deserves an answer. Sections 8, 9, and 24 of the Act create a carefully worded list of these shaded zones, balancing the citizen’s right to know with the State’s duty to protect sensitive matters. Understanding these exemptions is just as important as understanding the right itself, because they tell us where transparency ends and where competing public interests begin.

Why exemptions exist in a transparency law 🔗

The RTI Act was never meant to be an absolute right. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while disclosure is the rule, non-disclosure is a narrow exception that must be strictly interpreted. In Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, the Delhi High Court observed that since Section 8 places a restriction on a fundamental right, it must be read strictly and cannot be allowed to overshadow the right itself.

That said, there are genuine reasons for carving out exceptions. National security, ongoing investigations, personal privacy, trade secrets, and the integrity of parliamentary privilege all call for a degree of confidentiality. Without these safeguards, the Act would either collapse under misuse or force the government to share information that could cause serious harm.

Section 8: the ten categories of exempt information 🔗

Section 8(1) of the Act lists ten specific grounds on which a Public Information Officer (PIO) can refuse to share information. Each clause has been tested in courts and information commissions over the last two decades, producing a rich body of interpretation.

Sovereignty, security, and foreign relations [Section 8(1)(a)] 🔗

Information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, strategic, scientific or economic interests, relations with foreign countries, or lead to incitement of an offence is exempt. The PIO cannot simply label a file as “sensitive” and walk away. The officer must explain exactly how disclosure would harm these interests; without specific reasoning, the information must be released. Labels like “confidential” or “secret” on an internal file do not automatically bring it under Section 8.

Contempt of court [Section 8(1)(b)] 🔗

If a court or tribunal has expressly forbidden the publication of a matter, or if disclosure would amount to contempt of court, the PIO can refuse. This clause applies only when there is a clear judicial order restricting publication, not simply because a matter is sub-judice.

Breach of parliamentary privilege [Section 8(1)(c)] 🔗

Information that would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature is exempt. This protects the deliberative processes of legislative bodies and their committees.

Commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property [Section 8(1)(d)] 🔗

This clause protects commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property where disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest demands disclosure. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya, the Supreme Court clarified that this exemption is not absolute. After examinations are concluded and answer scripts evaluated, question papers, model answers, and instructions to examiners no longer threaten competitive position and can be disclosed.

Fiduciary relationships [Section 8(1)(e)] 🔗

Information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship is exempt unless a larger public interest warrants disclosure. Courts have held that this exemption can be claimed only by the recipient of the information, not by the person who provided it.

Information from foreign governments [Section 8(1)(f)] 🔗

Any information received in confidence from a foreign government is exempt. This maintains trust in diplomatic and bilateral exchanges.

Endangerment to life or physical safety [Section 8(1)(g)] 🔗

If disclosure 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, the PIO can refuse. The term “life” here is read expansively, drawing from Article 21 jurisprudence. In Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, the Supreme Court held that revealing the names and individual marks given by interview board members would expose them to physical danger and hamper their duties as examiners.

Ongoing investigations [Section 8(1)(h)] 🔗

Information that would impede the investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders is exempt. In Brij Mohan v. Central Information Commission, the Delhi High Court ruled that a complete CBI inquiry report falls within this exemption because releasing it could derail an ongoing investigation if the contents reached other offenders.

However, PIOs cannot hide behind this clause indefinitely. They must provide a clear and specific justification showing how release would actually harm the investigation. A blanket refusal is not allowed.

Cabinet papers [Section 8(1)(i)] 🔗

Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers, are exempt. Once a decision is taken and the matter is complete, the decision, its reasons, and the material on which it was based must be made public, subject to the other exemptions in Section 8.

Personal information and privacy [Section 8(1)(j)] 🔗

This is perhaps the most frequently invoked and debated clause. It exempts personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or whose disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, the Supreme Court held that details of an employee’s charges, penalties, and service records are essentially a matter between employee and employer and fall within this exemption.

The scope of Section 8(1)(j) has changed recently. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended this clause by removing the “larger public interest” test and expanding the exemption for personal information. Civil society groups have warned that this may significantly weaken citizens’ ability to scrutinise public officials, and the change is expected to face legal challenges in the coming years.

The public interest override 🔗

Section 8(2) contains one of the most powerful clauses in the entire Act. Notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any of the exemptions under Section 8(1), a public authority may allow access to information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests. In other words, even if a request falls squarely within an exemption, the PIO still has discretion to release it when the public stake is greater than the risk.

Importantly, the Act does not define “public interest.” This is deliberate. Public interest must be decided case by case, weighing the facts, the nature of the information, and the potential impact of disclosure. Officials are expected to record their reasoning in writing and lean towards disclosure wherever possible.

Section 9: the copyright ground for rejection 🔗

Section 9 adds another tool for PIOs. It allows rejection of a request where providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. This provision operates without prejudice to Section 8, meaning it is an additional, independent ground for refusal.

When does Section 9 apply? 🔗

The logic is straightforward. If someone asks for copies of a book in a government library, a copyrighted film, or a privately authored thesis in a university archive, the PIO can decline because copying and handing it over would violate the copyright of a third party. In Gurbaksh Singh v. PIO, Punjab University, photocopies of almost all pages of a thesis were denied on this basis.

When does Section 9 not apply? 🔗

Section 9 only protects copyright held by someone other than the State. If the copyright belongs to the government itself, the information cannot be denied on this ground. To deal with the practical issue of applicants asking for entire priced publications, some State rules simply require payment of the sale price instead of treating the request as an RTI query.

This distinction matters a great deal. A citizen cannot be refused government-authored reports, gazettes, or manuals under Section 9, because the government’s own copyright is no shield under the Act.

Section 24 and the Second Schedule: the blanket shield 🔗

While Sections 8 and 9 deal with the type of information, Section 24 takes a different approach altogether. It creates a near-blanket exemption for entire organisations. The Act provides that nothing in it shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, or to any information furnished by such organisations to the Central Government.

The list of exempted organisations 🔗

The Second Schedule originally contained a smaller list, but under Section 24(2) the Central Government can add more intelligence or security organisations by notification. Over the years, this list has grown. It now includes bodies such as the Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), the Directorate of Enforcement, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and the Narcotics Control Bureau, among others. In 2024, the government added the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) as the latest addition to this schedule, reflecting how cybersecurity has become central to national security thinking.

The two crucial exceptions 🔗

The shield under Section 24 is not absolute. The proviso carves out two important exceptions. Allegations of corruption and human rights violations cannot be hidden behind this exemption. Even the most secretive agency must disclose information related to such allegations.

For human rights cases, there is an added safeguard and a strict timeline. The information can be provided only after approval from the Central Information Commission (or the State Information Commission for state agencies), and it must be furnished within 45 days of the request.

Section 24 does not cover every investigating body 🔗

A common misconception is that any agency dealing with sensitive matters automatically qualifies as an intelligence or security organisation. The CIC has firmly rejected this view. In a widely cited decision, the Commission held that the CBI could not claim Second Schedule protection simply because its investigations sometimes touched upon terror-related or security-related matters. Its core function is investigation of corruption, economic offences, and organised crime, not intelligence gathering, and therefore it does not fit the description of an intelligence or security organisation.

State governments also have a parallel power under Section 24(4) to notify their own list of exempt state intelligence and security agencies through the Official Gazette.

Section 10: the doctrine of severability 🔗

One safeguard that often goes unnoticed is Section 10. If a record contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the PIO cannot reject the entire request. Access must be provided to the part of the record that does not contain exempt information and can reasonably be severed from the exempt portion. This prevents the misuse of exemptions as a convenient excuse to refuse an entire file because one paragraph happens to fall within Section 8.

Third-party information and Section 11 🔗

When the information requested relates to or was supplied by a third party and was treated as confidential, Section 11 requires the PIO to give the third party a chance to object before disclosure. However, as the third-party procedure clarifies, this is not a veto. The PIO must consider the objections, apply the exemptions in Section 8(1), and still disclose the information if larger public interest demands it. The third party has a voice, not a lock.

The bigger picture: balancing two public interests 🔗

Exemptions under the RTI Act are best understood as a negotiation between two kinds of public interest. On one side sits the public interest in knowing how power is exercised, money is spent, and decisions are made. On the other side sits the public interest in protecting national security, preserving fair trials, respecting privacy, and encouraging honest internal deliberation within government.

The Act does not pick one over the other. It gives both their due. The exemptions are narrow, the override is strong, and the courts have consistently reminded us that disclosure is the default. When in doubt, the Act tilts towards openness.

At the same time, recent developments deserve attention. The 2019 amendment altered the tenure and salary structure of Information Commissioners, and the 2023 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) has raised serious concerns about dilution of privacy-related transparency. Whether these changes will be read down by the courts or will permanently narrow the RTI landscape remains to be seen.

What do you think? Should the “larger public interest” test be restored to Section 8(1)(j) to ensure that information about public officials remains accessible? And is a blanket organisational exemption under Section 24 still justified in an era where even intelligence agencies are expected to be accountable for corruption and rights violations?

References

1. https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf
2. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/non-disclosure-of-information-under-section-8-1-h-of-rti-act
3. https://righttoinformation.wiki/explanations/grounds-for-rejection
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1838023/
5. https://www.lawxpertsmv.com/post/exemptions-under-right-to-information-act-2005
6. https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-judgments-section-8-rti-act-2005/
7. https://anantamias.com/right-to-information-act/
8. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/758550/
9. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1053993/
10. https://www.enforcementdirectorate.gov.in/others/rti/
11. https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/cert-in-exempted-from-rti
12. https://www.moneylife.in/article/rti-judgement-series-cbi-cannot-claim-exemption-under-second-schedule-of-the-rti-act/34198.html
13. https://righttoinformation.wiki/explanations/third-party