The Central Information Commission has clarified that invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to deny information requires more than a boilerplate assertion - it demands concrete evidence of actual interference with an ongoing investigation. This ruling reinforces the foundational principle that transparency is the rule and secrecy the exception under India’s right to information regime.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Vishnu Kumar Singh, a geologist with the Geological Survey of India, filed an RTI application on 16 April 2024 seeking details of all pending departmental and vigilance proceedings against him. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) denied the request on 7 May 2024, citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which permits withholding information if its disclosure would impede the investigation process.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 16 April 2024: RTI application submitted by the appellant
- 7 May 2024: CPIO denied information under Section 8(1)(h) without elaboration
- 17 October 2024: First appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority (FAA)
- No FAA order on record: The FAA failed to dispose of the first appeal
- 27 January 2026: Second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission
Relief Sought
The appellant sought disclosure of all pending departmental and vigilance proceedings against him, arguing that the CPIO’s refusal was arbitrary and lacked legal justification. He also sought redressal for the FAA’s failure to decide his first appeal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public authority can lawfully deny information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act merely by invoking the statutory phrase, or whether it must demonstrate a tangible, specific risk that disclosure would impede an ongoing investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on the ratio decidendi of B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer, Delhi High Court to argue that Section 8(1)(h) cannot be applied mechanically. He contended that the CPIO’s reply was a generic, non-substantive denial lacking any factual basis or analysis of how disclosure would hamper an investigation. He further emphasized that the FAA’s inaction violated the statutory duty under Section 19(1) to dispose of appeals within 30 days.
For the Respondent
The CPIO did not appear before the Commission or file a written response. No justification was submitted to substantiate the claim that disclosure would impede any investigation. The absence of any rebuttal or evidence rendered the denial legally unsustainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the statutory language of Section 8(1)(h) and held that its application is not automatic. It emphasized that the exemption is an exception to the rule of disclosure and must be narrowly construed. The Commission cited B.S. Mathur v. Public Information Officer to affirm that the burden lies squarely on the public authority to prove not just a theoretical risk, but an actual impediment to investigation.
"The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation."
The Commission further noted that the CPIO’s failure to appear at the hearing, coupled with the absence of any written justification, amounted to a dereliction of duty under Section 19(5), which places the burden of proof on the public authority to justify non-disclosure. The FAA’s failure to decide the first appeal compounded the procedural violation. The Commission concluded that the denial was not only legally flawed but also contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act, which prioritizes openness and accountability.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Commission held that Section 8(1)(h) cannot be invoked without demonstrating actual impediment to investigation and set aside the CPIO’s denial. It directed the CPIO to issue a revised, categorical reply within four weeks, disclosing all non-exempt pending proceedings, and warned against future non-appearance without valid exemption requests.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disclosure Requires Concrete Justification
- Practitioners must now challenge blanket denials under Section 8(1)(h) by demanding specific, factual explanations linking disclosure to actual interference
- Generic citations of the statute without contextual analysis are legally insufficient and subject to reversal
- RTI applicants should request detailed affidavits or declarations from public authorities justifying each exemption claim
FAA Inaction Is a Ground for Direct Relief
- The Commission’s willingness to adjudicate the second appeal despite the FAA’s non-decision establishes that procedural lapses by lower authorities do not bar relief
- Applicants may now directly approach the Commission if the FAA fails to act within 30 days, without needing to wait indefinitely
- This reinforces the Commission’s role as a guardian of RTI rights, not merely an appellate body
Non-Appearance Has Consequences
- Public officials who fail to appear before the Commission without prior exemption risk adverse inference and formal warnings
- The Commission’s advisory under Section 25(5), though nil in this case, signals that repeated non-compliance may trigger disciplinary action
- Practitioners should document non-appearance as a procedural flaw in appeals to strengthen their case
