Leading decisions of the Information Commissions — the composite departmental essay — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Leading decisions of the Information Commissions — the composite departmental essay

Ask what the RTI Act means and you read the sections. Ask what it does and you read the Commissions. It is in the CIC’s and the SICs’ departmental decisions — an income-tax return withheld, a loan-defaulter’s name released, a police diary demanded — that the abstract exemptions of s. 8 acquire their real edges. This topic is the map of that case-law, department by department; the later topics (7–13) zoom into each.

The recurring pattern across departments

A. Why the papers ask for a “composite” essay

Several papers do not ask about one department; they ask for the “leading cases on Income Tax, Banks, Police and Revenue” together. The reason is that a single principle runs through all of them, and the examiner wants you to show it operating across the board. So learn the departments as illustrations of one idea, not as a list.

B. The one idea — public function, personal shield, public-interest override

Three moves decide almost every departmental case:

Public authority? — Even a company or a bank can be a “public authority” under s. 2(h) if it is State-owned or substantially State-financed (BSNL, nationalised banks). Corporate form is no escape.
Personal or fiduciary shield? — Where the information is somebody’s personal data (ITR, service record, SIM data) it attracts s. 8(1)(j); where it was received in confidence it may attract s. 8(1)(e).
Public-interest override and severance — Under s. 8(2) and the proviso to s. 8(1)(j), and with s. 10 severability, the Commission releases what serves the public interest and redacts the rest.

C. The landmark decisions to name

Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007, Delhi HC) — exemptions must be construed strictly; the burden of proving an exemption is on the PIO (Income Tax) [Topic 12].
Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) — the RBI cannot withhold bank inspection reports and defaulter lists in a claimed fiduciary interest; disclosure serves the public [Topic 11].
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) — service records and ITRs are personal information [Topics 8, 12].
CIC decisions on the Police — the count of FIRs and arrests, and a closed case’s records, are disclosable; only a live investigation is shielded by s. 8(1)(h) [Topic 7].

Section 8(2), Right to Information 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: No exemption in the Act is absolute (except s. 8(1)(a)-type national-security limbs read with s. 8(2)’s own carve-outs). Whatever the department, the Commission asks the same last question: does the public interest in knowing outweigh the harm in telling? That single test unifies the whole topic.

🔑 KEY POINT — one test, many departments

🔑 Whether the file sits in a bank, a tax office, a police station or a land-records room, the Commission runs the same three-step test: (1) is the holder a public authority (s. 2(h))? (2) does an exemption genuinely apply (s. 8/9), the burden being on the PIO? (3) does the public interest override it (s. 8(2)), with severance under s. 10? Master that spine and every departmental question answers itself.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — a four-department composite question

Facts. An exam asks: “Discuss the leading Commission decisions on Income Tax, Banks, Police and Revenue.”

Rule. Answer by principle, illustrated department by department, using the three-step spine (public authority → exemption → override).

Apply. Income Tax — Bhagat Singh (strict construction; burden on PIO) and Girish Deshpande (a third party’s ITR is personal, s. 8(1)(j)). Banks — RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) (no fiduciary shield for inspection reports; defaulter lists disclosable). Police — CIC decisions releasing the count of FIRs/arrests and closed-case records, s. 8(1)(h) protecting only live investigations. Revenue — land and mutation records are public, but denotification files may be severed under s. 10 for the personal or commercial parts.

Conclusion. Each department is a variation on one theme: strict exemptions, the burden on the authority, and the public interest as the tie-breaker.

flowchart TD
    A["LEADING COMMISSION DECISIONS<br/>one test across every department"]
    A --> B["STEP 1 — public authority? s. 2(h)<br/>(BSNL, banks: corporate form is no escape)"]
    A --> C["STEP 2 — genuine exemption?<br/>s. 8(1)(j) personal; s. 8(1)(e) fiduciary;<br/>burden on the PIO"]
    A --> D["STEP 3 — public-interest override<br/>s. 8(2) + severance s. 10"]
    A --> E["Illustrations: Bhagat Singh (IT, 2007),<br/>RBI v. Mistry (Banks, 2016),<br/>Girish Deshpande (2013), Police diaries"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E box;

Case Laws

Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007, Delhi HC) — exemptions are construed strictly and the burden of justifying refusal lies on the PIO.
Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) — a regulator cannot shelter behind a fiduciary claim to withhold information held for the public.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) — personal records (service, tax) are exempt absent a demonstrated public interest.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — the Act must be read purposively to advance accountability across every public authority.

📄 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