Third-party information — s. 11 — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Third-party information — s. 11

Suppose you file an RTI for a company’s tender bid, and that bid was given to the government “in confidence”. Should the company get a say before its secrets are handed over? Section 11 says yes — it gives the third party a hearing. But notice what it does not do: it does not by itself keep the information secret.

A procedure, not an exemption

Section 11 is the third-party procedure. It applies where the information requested relates to, or was supplied by, a third party and has been treated as confidential by that party. The steps:

A. Notice within five days

Within five days of receiving the request, the PIO must give written notice to the third party that he intends to disclose the information, and invite the third party to make a representation.

B. The third party’s ten days

The third party has ten days from the notice to make a representation against disclosure.

C. The PIO decides within forty days

After considering the representation, the PIO must decide — usually within forty days of the request — whether to disclose, giving reasons. Trade secrets/commercial confidence may weigh against disclosure, but the PIO may still disclose if the public interest in disclosure outweighs any harm to the third party’s interests (except trade/commercial secrets protected by law).

D. The third party’s appeal

If the PIO decides to disclose over the objection, the third party may appeal under s. 19 before the information is released.

The single most important point for the exam: s. 11 is procedural. It does not create a new exemption; it only guarantees the third party a hearing before his confidential information is disclosed. The information may still be released — s. 11 just ensures fairness first.

Section 11(1), RTI Act, 2005: “Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer… intends to disclose any information or record… which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the… Officer shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party… and invite the third party to make a submission…”

In Simple Terms: If your request touches information a third party gave in confidence, the PIO must warn that third party within five days and hear his objection (10 days) before deciding (within 40 days). It is a fairness step — the third party gets a say and an appeal — but the information can still be disclosed if public interest outweighs the harm.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — s. 11 (procedure) vs s. 8(1)(d)/(e)/(j) (exemption)

s. 8 tells you whether information is exempt. s. 11 tells you how to deal with a third party whose confidential information is involved — a notice-and-hearing procedure. A common error is to treat s. 11 as itself a ground of refusal. It is not: even after the s. 11 hearing, the PIO can disclose if public interest outweighs the harm.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the confidential tender bid

Facts. A seeks a company’s tender documents, which the company had marked “confidential”. The PIO is inclined to disclose.

Rule. s. 11: notice to the third party within 5 days; representation in 10 days; decision within 40 days; third-party appeal before release.

Apply. The PIO must notify the company and consider its objection. Genuine trade secrets weigh against disclosure (s. 8(1)(d)); but the evaluation of public tenders generally carries a strong public interest, so the PIO may still disclose the non-secret parts, giving reasons.

Conclusion. Follow the s. 11 procedure, then disclose what public interest requires; the company’s remedy is a s. 19 appeal, not an automatic veto.

flowchart TD
    A["Request touches third-party confidential info"]
    A --> B["PIO notice to third party within 5 days (s. 11(1))"]
    B --> C["Third party representation within 10 days"]
    C --> D["PIO decides within 40 days, with reasons"]
    D --> E{"Disclose over objection?"}
    E -->|"Yes"| F["Third party may appeal (s. 19) before release"]
    E -->|"No"| G["Withhold"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,F,G box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class E q;

Case Laws

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — third-party interests and confidentiality are considered within the Act’s scheme, not as an absolute veto.
RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) — third-party (bank) confidentiality did not defeat disclosure where public interest was strong.

📄 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