Exemptions from disclosure: sections 8, 9 and 10
Right to Information · Unit II · Topic 6 of 16 · 8 min read
On this page
Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.
Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.
1. The structure of section 8
Section 8(1) says there shall be no obligation to give the listed information. The clauses relieve the PIO of the duty to disclose; they do not forbid disclosure. Section 19(5) puts the burden of justifying a refusal on the officer who refused.
2. The clauses of section 8(1)
- (a) Sovereignty and security. Information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relations with a foreign State, or lead to incitement of an offence.
- (b) Courts. Information expressly forbidden to be published by a court or tribunal, or whose disclosure may constitute contempt of court.
- (c) Legislative privilege. Information whose disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.
- (d) Commercial confidence. Commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property whose disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure.
- (e) Fiduciary relationship. Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure.
- (f) Foreign confidence. Information received in confidence from a foreign Government.
- (g) Safety and sources. Information whose disclosure 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.
- (h) Investigation. Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
- (i) Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. Under the provisos, the decisions of the Council of Ministers, the reasons and the material on which they were taken must be made public after the decision is taken and the matter is complete, except what falls under another exemption.
- (j) Personal information — see section 4 below.
On clause (e), CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) held that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer book in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee, so the examinee can see his own answer book; and in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, 2015 INSC 942, (2016) 3 SCC 525, the Court rejected the Reserve Bank’s claim that it holds inspection reports and information about banks in a fiduciary capacity: the Bank is a regulator acting in the public interest, not a trustee for the banks, and economic interest or commercial confidence could not be used to keep from the public information about defaults and irregularities.
On clause (g), Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, 2012 INSC 589, (2012) 13 SCC 61: interview board members’ names may be withheld where disclosure could endanger them.
3. Section 8(2) and 8(3): override and twenty-year rule
Section 8(2): notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 or any of the exemptions in sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. Every exemption is therefore subject to a balancing test.
Section 8(3): subject to clauses (a), (c) and (i), information relating to any event or matter that took place twenty years before the request must be provided. Disputes on the starting date are decided by the Central Government, subject to the usual appeals.
4. Clause (j): personal information, old and new
As enacted, clause (j) exempted personal information “the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual” unless the PIO or appellate authority was satisfied that the larger public interest justified disclosure, with a proviso that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 substituted the clause. It now reads: “(j) information which relates to personal information;”. The official India Code text of the 2023 Act records that section 44(3) came into force on 13 November 2025 (notification G.S.R. 843(E) of that date, issued with the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, while most of the 2023 Act’s other provisions were given later dates). The consolidated text of the RTI Act published by the Department of Personnel and Training (as on 18 November 2025) prints the new clause with the note “Subs. by Act 22 of 2023, s. 44 … (w.e.f. 13-11-2025)”, and the Parliament proviso no longer appears after it.
The effect is that personal information is now exempt as a class, without the in-built test of “no relationship to public activity” or “unwarranted invasion”. What survives is the general override in section 8(2): the authority may still disclose if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. Expect argument over how far the earlier case law, which balanced privacy against public interest inside clause (j), now operates through section 8(2) instead.
The earlier case law remains the guide to what counts as personal information. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 INSC 445, (2013) 1 SCC 212, the applicant sought an Enforcement Officer’s memos, show-cause notices and punishments, details of his movable and immovable property, investments, and his income-tax returns. The Court held all of it to be personal information: the performance of an employee is primarily a matter between employer and employee, and income-tax returns are personal information, exempt unless a larger public interest is shown. In Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam, 2017 INSC 835, (2018) 11 SCC 426, the same reasoning was applied to details of transfers and postings of a bank’s employees. The right to privacy recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 INSC 801, (2017) 10 SCC 1, is the constitutional basis for this exemption.
5. Section 9 and section 10
Section 9: the PIO may reject a request where providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. Copyright of the State itself is no ground.
Section 10, severability: where a request is rejected because the information is exempt, access may still be given to that part of the record which does not contain exempt information and can reasonably be severed. The PIO must tell the applicant that only part is supplied, the reasons and findings, his own name and designation, the fees, and the applicant’s right of review. The December 2020 paper set this as a short note.
6. Problem: income-tax returns
Shruthi applied to the Income Tax Department for the income-tax returns filed by Triveni. Can she succeed? (November 2021)
Issue. Whether a third person’s income-tax returns can be obtained under the RTI Act.
Law. Section 8(1)(j), now “information which relates to personal information”. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande held income-tax returns to be personal information. Disclosure is possible only under section 8(2), if the public interest outweighs the harm. Section 11 requires notice to Triveni as third party if disclosure is proposed.
Application. The returns contain Triveni’s income, investments and family details. Nothing suggests Triveni holds public office or that the returns reveal misuse of public funds. A private dispute between the two is not public interest.
Conclusion. Shruthi will not succeed. If she can show a real public interest (for example, that Triveni is a public servant and the returns bear on a corruption allegation), she may ask for disclosure under section 8(2), after Triveni is heard under section 11.
7. Problem: a political leader’s details
A asked a public authority for a political leader’s educational qualifications, income, assets and liabilities, PAN and religion. Advise him. (April 2021)
Analysis. Separate the items. A candidate’s criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualifications are required to be disclosed in the nomination affidavit, following Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) and PUCL v. Union of India (2003), which held the voter’s right to know these to be part of Article 19(1)(a). What the candidate has filed in that affidavit is public; A can get it from the Returning Officer or the Election Commission, and personal-information objections carry little weight against information the law already makes public. Income-tax details beyond the affidavit, the PAN and religion are personal information under section 8(1)(j) with no evident public interest; religion in particular has no bearing on public office. Advise A that he will get the first group of items and is unlikely to get the PAN or religion.
How this is examined
“Transparency is the rule but secrecy is an exception — discuss in the light of section 8” (April 2021) and “What are the informations exempted from disclosure?” (November 2021) are the two essay forms. List all ten clauses with a line each, then section 8(2), 8(3), 9 and 10, with Aditya Bandopadhyay, Jayantilal Mistry and Girish Deshpande. Always state the post-2025 wording of clause (j) and its commencement; an answer that quotes only the old clause is out of date.
Now try the real questions: Right to Information past question papers.