The Central Information Commission has reinforced a foundational principle of transparency under the Right to Information Act: public authorities cannot defer claiming statutory exemptions until the appeal stage. This decision clarifies that procedural compliance is not optional but a mandatory precondition for withholding information.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rajesh Kumar, filed an RTI application on 05-05-2024 seeking detailed information regarding "no halt zones" for oil tankers operated by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL). The information requested included the locations of these zones, tanker registration numbers, transporter details, and any legal actions taken against entities involved in fuel theft at such locations. The appellant alleged that BPCL officials were aware of systematic theft of diesel from tankers at designated "cutting centers" and had issued internal directives to lock VTS systems upon detection.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 05-05-2024: RTI application submitted offline to CPIO, BPCL
- 23-05-2024: CPIO replied, rejecting the request under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, citing "personal information" exemption without specifying how the data qualified as such
- 08-06-2024: First appeal filed challenging the rejection
- 10-07-2024: First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s decision without elaboration
- 06-10-2024: Second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission
Relief Sought
The appellant sought full disclosure of the requested information, including the names and designations of officers responsible for initiating legal action against fuel theft, and the procedural records of such actions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public authority can invoke an exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act for the first time during appellate proceedings, or whether such exemption must be expressly stated in the initial reply.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that the CPIO’s reply was legally defective because it invoked Section 8(1)(j) without demonstrating how the information sought constituted personal data. He argued that the CPIO failed to apply the principle of proportionality or public interest override under Section 8(2). He relied on Central Information Commission v. State of Bihar to assert that vague or generic rejections violate the spirit of the RTI Act.
For the Respondent
The respondent, through its CPIO and DGM, argued during the hearing that disclosure of no-halt zone locations could endanger public safety by enabling criminal elements to target oil tankers. However, this ground was not mentioned in the original reply. The respondent sought to justify the denial on grounds of public safety under Section 8(1)(a), but conceded that this rationale had not been articulated earlier.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission emphasized that the RTI Act is a statutory mechanism designed to ensure accountability through timely and transparent disclosure. The initial reply under Section 7(1) is not a preliminary statement but a formal determination that triggers the appellate process. The Commission held that allowing authorities to introduce new grounds for exemption at the appeal stage would undermine the statutory timeline and place an unfair burden on applicants.
"The right to information is meaningless if the public authority is permitted to withhold information on grounds not disclosed at the first instance. The appellant is entitled to know why his request was denied, not to guess at possible exemptions during litigation."
The Commission distinguished this case from those where new facts emerge during hearing, noting that here, the exemption claimed was a legal argument, not a factual development. It further observed that Section 8(1)(a), which permits denial to protect sovereignty or security, requires a higher threshold of justification than mere speculation about risk. The CPIO’s failure to even attempt a reasoned application of any exemption rendered the initial reply non-compliant with Section 7(9).
The Verdict
The appellant prevailed. The Commission held that exemptions under the RTI Act must be explicitly invoked and reasoned in the initial reply. The CPIO was directed to issue a revised response within 15 days, addressing the information requested in point 4(b) regarding officer designations and office addresses, and to properly invoke any applicable exemption with justification.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Exemptions Must Be Explicitly Stated in Initial Reply
- Practitioners must challenge RTI replies that cite exemptions without explanation or reference to specific sub-sections
- Public authorities risk having their denials overturned if they introduce new grounds during appeal
- A reply citing only "Section 8(1)(j)" without linking facts to the provision is legally defective
Public Interest Override Requires Active Consideration
- Even if an exemption applies, authorities must assess whether larger public interest justifies disclosure under Section 8(2)
- Silence on this balance constitutes a failure of duty
- Applicants may now demand a written assessment of public interest in their replies
Designations and Office Addresses Are Not Exempt
- Information about official designations and office addresses of public servants is not personal data under Section 8(1)(j)
- Such details are essential for accountability and are routinely disclosed in other RTI rulings
- Authorities cannot mask administrative transparency under the guise of privacy
