Blanket Invocation of RTI Exemptions Without Application of Mind and Specific Justification is Impermissible

In brief

The question

1. Whether the public authorities were justified in rejecting RTI applications by making general references to exemptions under Section 8 without demonstrating their specific applicability to the documents sought.

The court held

The Court partially allowed the petitions. It held that while the Petitioner is not entitled to the Attorney General’s legal opinion under Section 8(1)(e), the remaining information was wrongly withheld.

It also directed

The Court directed the Petitioner to request inspection of the relevant files, and ordered the respondents to: (a) fix a time for inspection; (b) allow the Petitioner to list desired documents; and (c) furnish said documents within 30 days of the request.

The petitions were disposed of to ensure transparency in government functioning.

01Facts

The Petitioner, an allottee of land in a project at Andrewsganj, New Delhi, was involved in litigation with HUDCO regarding the cancellation of his company’s allotment.

pp. 2-3

Seeking information related to the project’s handover and correspondence between the Government of India (GoI), HUDCO, and NBCC, the Petitioner filed RTI applications for letters, minutes of meetings, and internal resolutions.

pp. 3-4

The CPIOs of HUDCO and NBCC denied the information, invoking blanket exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a), (d), (e), (h), and (i) of the RTI Act, as well as Section 11(1).

pp. 3-4

Both the First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld these rejections, citing that disclosure might affect pending litigation and economic interests.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the public authorities were justified in rejecting RTI applications by making general references to exemptions under Section 8 without demonstrating their specific applicability to the documents sought.

p. 5

ii.2. Whether a legal opinion obtained from the Attorney General of India falls under the "fiduciary capacity" exemption of Section 8(1)(e).

p. 8

03Law Applied

The court applied the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, specifically Section 2(f) defining "information".

p. 5

It relied on ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya to establish that Section 8(1)(d) exemptions are not perpetual and depend on actual competitive harm.

p. 7

The definition of "fiduciary relationship" was determined through CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, emphasizing trust and confidence.

pp. 7-8

Regarding legal opinions, the court followed Union of India & Anr v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, which held that advice from Law Officers (like the Solicitor General or Attorney General) to the Government is protected under the fiduciary exemption of Section 8(1)(e).

p. 9

The "Doctrine of Severability" under Section 10 was referenced via Bachan Singh Rana v. CPIO.

p. 10

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 2 Section 8 Section 11

04Reasoning

The court found that the respondents had "mechanically invoked" exemptions without applying their minds to the specific documents.

p. 6

It reasoned that Section 8(1)(a) requires a specific determination of sensitivity toward national interests, which was absent here.

p. 6

Under Section 8(1)(d), the respondents failed to identify how 10-year-old correspondence would harm current competitive positions.

p. 7

Regarding Section 8(1)(e), the court ruled that ordinary correspondence between public authorities is not inherently fiduciary; however, the legal opinion of the Attorney General is a protected communication based on lawyer-client trust.

p. 8

The court dismissed the Section 8(1)(h) "impediment to investigation" plea, noting that the related litigations were already reserved for judgment, meaning disclosure could no longer interfere with the judicial process.

p. 10

Finally, it held that Section 11(1) is a procedure for third-party notification, not an independent ground for denial.

p. 5