Exemptions from disclosure — s. 8, the s. 8(2) override, ss. 8(3) and 9 — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Exemptions from disclosure — s. 8, the s. 8(2) override, ss. 8(3) and 9

If the right to information were absolute, a spy could file an RTI for troop movements and a rival could file for your trade secrets. So the Act draws a line. Section 8 is that line — ten carefully-worded exemptions. But here is the mark-winning idea most candidates miss: the exemptions are read narrowly, and none of them is an absolute wall — s. 8(2) can override them, and s. 10 can cut the exempt part out and release the rest.

The ten clauses of s. 8(1)

Learn all ten by their subject. Notwithstanding anything in the Act, there is no obligation to give a citizen:

A. s. 8(1)(a) — sovereignty, security, foreign relations

Information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relations with a foreign State, or lead to incitement of an offence.

B. s. 8(1)(b) — contempt of court

Information expressly forbidden to be published by a court or tribunal, or whose disclosure may constitute contempt of court.

C. s. 8(1)(c) — breach of privilege

Information whose disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.

D. s. 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence, trade secrets, IPR

Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party — unless the larger public interest warrants disclosure.

E. s. 8(1)(e) — fiduciary relationship

Information available to a person in his fiduciary [trust-based] relationship — unless the larger public interest warrants disclosure. (A bank holding a customer’s securities, an employer holding an employee’s confidential report, an examiner–examinee relationship in part.)

F. s. 8(1)(f) — foreign confidential information

Information received in confidence from a foreign government.

G. s. 8(1)(g) — safety of a person / source

Information whose 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. (This protects the identity of an examiner/valuer, informants, and rescued victims.)

H. s. 8(1)(h) — impeding investigation

Information which would impede the process of investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. (Protects a live investigation — not a closed case, and not mere statistics.)

I. s. 8(1)(i) — cabinet papers

Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers — though the decisions and reasons are to be made public after the decision is taken and the matter is complete.

J. s. 8(1)(j) — personal information / privacy

Personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy — unless the larger public interest justifies disclosure. (This is Topic 8, the biggest problem-set — treated separately below.)

The three great softeners

An exemption clause is never the end of the analysis. Three provisions cut it down.

K. s. 8(2) — the public-interest override

Notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the s. 8(1) exemptions, a public authority may allow access if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest. So even OSA-protected or exempt material can be released where public interest is greater.

L. s. 8(3) — the 20-year rule

Information more than twenty years old must ordinarily be disclosed — age makes it more disclosable, not less (subject to (a), (c) and (i) which stay protected).

M. s. 9 — copyright of a third person

A request may be rejected where disclosure would infringe the copyright of a person other than the State. (Note: only a third party’s copyright; the State cannot plead its own copyright.)

Section 8(2), RTI Act, 2005: “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.”

In Simple Terms: Section 8 lists ten kinds of information a PIO may withhold — security, court/legislature matters, commercial and fiduciary secrets, personal safety, live investigations, cabinet papers, and personal privacy. But none is absolute: public interest can override them (8(2)), age (20 years) usually defeats them (8(3)), and only a third party’s copyright supports refusal (s. 9).

💡 EXAM TIP — never treat a clause as an absolute bar

The trap. Candidates identify the clause (say s. 8(1)(d)) and stop — “exempt, refused” — losing the marks for the override and severability.

What to write. After naming the clause, always add the two-step check: is there a larger public interest (s. 8(2)) that outweighs the harm, and can the exempt part be severed (s. 10) so the rest is released? Note that (d), (e) and (j) expressly carry the public-interest proviso.

Why it scores. The examiner sets these problems precisely to see whether you know the exemption is a starting point, not a conclusion.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the patent-specification problem

Facts. B asks the Patent Office for the specification of A’s granted “Long Life Battery” patent.

Rule. s. 8(1)(d) protects commercial confidence/IPR of a third party; but a granted patent’s specification is, by law, a public document.

Apply. Decoy: “a patent is a public register, so everything is open” — and, oppositely, “IPR is always exempt”. The truth is in between: once a patent is granted and published, its specification is public and disclosable; s. 8(1)(d) would bite only on undisclosed IPR or a pending, unpublished application.

Conclusion. The granted specification must be disclosed; s. 8(1)(d) does not protect what patent law itself has already published.

flowchart TD
    A["Request hits an exemption (s. 8(1)(a)-(j))"]
    A --> B{"s. 8(2): public interest ><br/>harm?"}
    B -->|"Yes"| C["Disclose (override)"]
    B -->|"No"| D{"s. 8(3): more than 20 years old?"}
    D -->|"Yes"| C
    D -->|"No"| E{"s. 10: can exempt part be severed?"}
    E -->|"Yes"| F["Release the rest; mask the exempt lines"]
    E -->|"No"| G["Withhold (reasoned refusal)"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,F,G box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B,D,E q;

Case Laws

• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — exemptions are to be construed strictly; the fiduciary exception does not cover an evaluated answer-script.
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) — s. 8(1)(e)/(a) cannot shield bank inspection reports; no fiduciary relationship, and public interest favours disclosure.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) — s. 8(1)(j) protects a public servant’s personal information absent a demonstrated public interest.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics