Disclosure of Informant Statements in Law Enforcement Matters is Exempt Under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act

The Appellant preferred an intra-court appeal assailing the judgment dated 06.05.2026 ("Impugned Judgment") passed in W.P.(C) 14827/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition seeking quashing of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Central Information Commission ("CIC") in Second Appeal No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2024/126536 ("CIC Order").

The Appellant had sought disclosure of the recorded statements of seven property owners/occupants, which were relied upon by the Appellant to substantiate allegations of blackmailing against the Appellant and his father in the self-contained note dated 16.10.2019 forwarded by the CBI to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police.

Disclosure was declined by the CPIO, CBI vide response dated 30.04.2024, and subsequently by the CIC, on the ground that the information squarely fell within the exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act").

The learned Single Judge likewise dismissed the Writ Petition relying upon Section 8(1)(g).

1. Whether the information sought, namely the recorded statements of the seven property owners/occupants, was validly exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred by applying the exemption under Section 8(1)(g) mechanically, without examining the nature or likelihood of the apprehended harm or requiring the Respondents to establish a tangible threat to the life or safety of the said property owners/occupants.

Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempts from disclosure "information, the disclosure of which 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".

On a plain reading of the provision, information furnished in confidence for law enforcement purposes, or disclosure whereof is likely to endanger the life or physical safety of any person, is exempt from disclosure.

In Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61, the Supreme Court held that the expression "life" in Section 8(1)(g) must receive a liberal construction, and that the competent authority (the CPIO) is entitled to assess whether disclosure of the information is likely to endanger the life or physical safety of any person and accordingly to bring such information within the exemption.

Applying the plain text of Section 8(1)(g) to the facts, the Division Bench noted that the allegations of blackmailing against the Appellant were founded upon the statements of the property owners/occupants, which had been furnished in confidence to the CBI for law enforcement purposes; disclosure of the names or other identifying particulars of such individuals may reasonably endanger their life or physical safety.

This satisfied both limbs of the statutory exemption—confidential sources of law enforcement information and endangerment of life or physical safety.

Guided by Bihar Public Service Commission (supra), the Court adopted a liberal construction of "life" and affirmed that the assessment of likely endangerment lies within the domain of the competent authority, thereby rejecting the Appellant's contention that the CPIO was required to demonstrate a tangible threat.

Finding no infirmity in the Impugned Judgment warranting interference, the Court dismissed the Appeal, disposed of pending application(s), if any, and made no order as to costs.