Section 8(3) of the RTI Act is a Sunset Clause Facilitating Disclosure, Not a Ground for Denial.

The petitioner filed an RTI application on 25.02.2020 seeking details of a third-party public servant (Dr. Ram Narayan Sharma), specifically his dates of joining (1998) and superannuation, along with relevant note-sheets

The Public Information Officer and subsequent appellate authorities rejected the request on two grounds: first, that the information pertained to an event occurring more than twenty years ago and was thus barred under Section 8(3); and second, that it constituted third-party personal information exempted under Section 11

The petitioner challenged the Second Appellate Authority’s order dated 18.12.2021 before the High Court

1. Whether the passage of twenty years acts as a statutory bar under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act to deny information

2. Whether the appellate authority failed to follow the mandatory procedure for third-party information as prescribed under Section 11 of the RTI Act

The court primarily interpreted Section 8(3) and Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It held that Section 8(3) is a "sunset clause" intended to lift exemptions for most records after twenty years, rather than a provision to impose a bar on disclosure

The court relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyaya (2011) to establish that protections under Section 8(1)(j) cease after twenty years. Furthermore, it applied the procedural mandates of Section 11 regarding third-party notice as elucidated in the Constitution Bench judgment of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020)

The court found that the Second Appellate Authority committed a "patent illeagality" by weaponizing Section 8(3) as a ground for denial.

The court reasoned that since the information sought was over twenty years old, the personal information exemption under Section 8(1)(j) had expired by operation of the sunset clause.

Additionally, the court observed that the authority failed to follow the mandatory "balancing exercise" under Section 11; it cannot act as a "proxy defender of privacy" without issuing notice to the third party to seek their objections/submissions. The court noted that the passage of six years since the application made further procedural delays vexatious.

The court directed the respondents to supply the requested information to the petitioner within sixty days. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to serve the order upon the Rajasthan State Information Commission for future compliance.