Judicial response to the RTI Act: the leading Supreme Court decisions

1. Examinations: Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011 INSC 557, (2011) 8 SCC 497, students asked to inspect their evaluated answer books. The Court held:

• An evaluated answer book is a record and therefore information; every examinee has the right to inspect his own answer book or take certified copies.
• The examining body does not hold the answer books in a fiduciary capacity towards the examinee, so section 8(1)(e) does not apply. But the examiners are in a fiduciary relationship with the body, and the names and particulars of examiners may be withheld, also under section 8(1)(g), to protect their safety.
• The Act does not oblige an authority to create, collect or collate information it does not hold, or to give opinions. Indiscriminate and impractical demands that divert officials from their work were deprecated, though the Court did not narrow the right on that account.

In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya, 2011 INSC 640, (2011) 8 SCC 781, the same bench held that question papers, model answers and instructions to examiners are the Institute’s intellectual property, but once the examination is over their disclosure would not harm any competitive position, so section 8(1)(d) did not protect them; instructions given to examiners in confidence were held to fall under section 8(1)(e).

2. The judiciary: Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)

A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court held in 2010 that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority and that information about judges’ declarations of assets could be disclosed. On appeal, a Constitution Bench decided Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019 INSC 1233, (2020) 5 SCC 481. The requests concerned correspondence and file notings on the appointment of three judges who superseded seniors, a 1997 resolution on declaration of assets, and correspondence about a report that a Union Minister had tried to influence a High Court judge. The Court held:

• The Supreme Court and the office of the Chief Justice of India are one public authority, and the Act applies to them.
• Judicial independence is not a ground of exemption in itself; transparency and accountability are not opposed to it. Each request must be tested against the exemptions in the Act.
• Information about judges’ assets is personal information, but whether it should be disclosed depends on the public interest balancing; the mere fact that information is personal does not end the inquiry. Privacy and the right to information are both to be weighed, using proportionality.
• The judges concerned are third parties, and the CPIO must follow section 11 before deciding on disclosure of information about them; the matters were sent back for that purpose.

Note that this was decided under the old clause (j), which contained its own public interest test. Since 13 November 2025 clause (j) exempts personal information as a class, and the balancing the Court described now has to be done under section 8(2).

3. Personal information: Girish Deshpande (2012) and C.S. Shyam (2017)

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 INSC 445, (2013) 1 SCC 212: memos, show-cause notices and punishments of an employee, his assets and his income-tax returns are personal information; the performance of an employee is a matter between him and his employer. Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam, 2017 INSC 835, (2018) 11 SCC 426: details of transfers and postings of a bank’s clerical staff are personal information; the Commission and the High Court were wrong to order them.

4. Bodies and regulators

Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala (2013): a co-operative society is not a public authority unless owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government, but information the Registrar can obtain about it is accessible through the Registrar (see the Unit II note). Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015): the Reserve Bank is not in a fiduciary relationship with the banks it regulates and cannot refuse information on inspections and defaults on that ground.

5. The Commissions

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011): a complaint under section 18 cannot lead to an order to disclose; the route is appeal under section 19. Namit Sharma (2012) and the review (2013): directions for judicial members recalled. Anjali Bhardwaj (2019): vacancies to be filled in time and the selection to be transparent. Kishan Chand Jain (2023): Commissions to monitor section 4 disclosure and to offer hybrid hearings.

6. Problems

(a) Gururaj applied under the RTI Act for copies of the answer scripts of his son and of his son’s friend Ramesh. Can he succeed? (November 2021)

Under Aditya Bandopadhyay an evaluated answer book is information, and an examinee may see his own. The son’s script: if the son is a minor or applies with his father, the request is in substance the examinee’s own and will be allowed; if the son is an adult, his consent removes the privacy objection, and without it the script is the son’s personal information. Ramesh’s script is Ramesh’s personal information under section 8(1)(j); Ramesh is a third party under section 11 and must be given notice if disclosure is proposed. Comparing marks or satisfying curiosity is not public interest under section 8(2). Gururaj succeeds as to his son’s script (with the names of examiners masked under section 10) and fails as to Ramesh’s.

(b) Raju applied for details of loan borrowers in a co-operative society at Kunigal. Can he succeed? (November 2021)

First, the society is not a public authority merely because it is registered under the Karnataka co-operative law: Thalappalam. Raju must show State ownership, control beyond regulation, or substantial financing. If he cannot, he may apply to the Registrar for information the Registrar can lawfully obtain. Second, either way, names and loan details of individual borrowers are personal information under section 8(1)(j). A larger public interest may exist if the loans were sanctioned to the society’s office-bearers or in breach of rules, causing losses to members or to public funds; then disclosure can be sought under section 8(2), after notice under section 11. On bare facts, Raju fails; with evidence of irregularity, aggregate or specific information may be ordered.

(c) Raju applied for the service details of Shankar. Can he succeed? (December 2020)

Service details — postings, transfers, disciplinary record, pay particulars beyond what section 4(1)(b) requires to be published — are personal information: Girish Deshpande, C.S. Shyam. Shankar’s name, designation and monthly remuneration are published under section 4(1)(b)(ix) and (x) and can be had. The rest is exempt unless Raju shows a larger public interest, for example that Shankar’s appointment was made in violation of the rules.

(d) Rajiv, a social worker, applied for information about the medical expenses of judges. Can he succeed? (December 2020)

The Supreme Court and High Courts are public authorities: Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Medical reimbursements are paid from public funds, so the total amounts spent, the rules under which they are paid and aggregate figures are information about the use of public money and can be disclosed. Details of individual judges’ illnesses and treatment are personal health information, exempt under section 8(1)(j); disclosure of individual figures would need a public interest under section 8(2) and section 11 notice to the judges as third parties. Rajiv therefore succeeds in part: aggregate expenditure and rules, but not individual medical records.

How this is examined

Every recent paper sets two problems out of three from this material, worth 20 marks together. Use issue, law, application, conclusion; name the case and the clause; and always mention section 11 when another person’s information is sought. The essay form, “Judicial response to the RTI Act”, is answered by sections 1 to 5 of this note in order.