Information on this page is 4 year old. Update will have to await a volunteer who is willing to take responsibility for this section.

1. “Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8, being a restriction on this fundamental right, must, therefore, is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.” (Delhi High Court in a judgment in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007)
2. File notings have to be disclosed. (Several orders of the CIC and various SICs)
3. Through this Order, the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to mala fide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1). (CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.06)
4. The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case. (CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 07.0706)
5. A public authority can divide responsibilities amongst PIOs, but every PIO has to accept every application. (10/1/2005/CIC dated 25.02.06)
6. The PIO with whom the application is submitted has to provide the information. He cannot forward to another PIO within his department. Also, he cannot ask the applicant to approach another PIO for submission or obtaining information. (ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 dated 06.03.06)
7. Only PIOs can provide information. Other officers and APIOs cannot provide information. APIOs job is to only forward the application or the appeal. (10/1/2005/CIC dated 25.02.06)
8. Transfer under section 6(3) is not possible within a single public authority. (10/1/2005/CIC dated 25.02.06 & ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 dated 06.03.06)
9. A public authority can prescribe a form for making application. However, it was clarified in a subsequent review order that an application can still be made on plain paper and it cannot be rejected. (CIC/C/I/2006 dated 16.01.06 & CICI/C/1/2006 dated 30.01.06)
10. The onus for timely dispatch of replies is on the PIO. (CIC/OK/A/2006/00049 dated 02.05.06)
11. An appellant can seek the help of others in proceedings. (10/1/2005/CIC dt. 25.02.06)
12. It is possible to seek reviews of Commission’s decisions. (CICI/C/1/2006 dated 30.01.06 & CIC/A/3/2006 dated 03.04.06)
13. An appellant has a right to be heard by the first appellate authority. (CIC/AT/A/2006/00040 dated 27.03.06)
14. A public authority can only ask for costs as prescribed in the Act and the Rules, and cannot ask for compensation for their time and other costs incurred. (23/IC(A)/2006 dt. 10.04.06)
15. Even if the information is available on the government’s website, one can ask for it though an application. (CIC/OK/A/2006/00046 dated 02.05.06)
16. A tender cannot be cancelled without giving reasons. In fact, every action of a public authority must have a reason and it should be transparent to all. (ICPB/A-4/CIC/2006 dated 10.02.06 & ICPB/A-6/CIC/2006 dated 27.02.06)
17. Information cannot be denied under section 7(9). This provision only deals with the form in which information is to be supplied. (10/1/2005/CIC dated 25.02.06)
18. The government cannot wrongly classify its documents as Secret and then claim exemption from disclosure. (CIC/A/12/2006 dated 21.02.06)
19. Excuse of “potential misuse” is not sufficient to deny information. (10/1/2005/CIC dated 25.02.06)
20. Jailed or under-trial people is not personal information and is not invasion of privacy. (CIC/WB/A/2006/00120 dated 01.05.06)
21. Tour programmes and travel expenses of a public authority are not personal information. (07/IC(A)/CIC/2006 dated 06.03.06)
22. Bio-datas and application forms together with enclosures for appointment in public authorities cannot be denied. (ICPB/A-9/CIC/2006 dated 03.04.06)
23. Personal performance assessment/appraisal forms of government employees cannot be disclosed. (29/IC(A)/06 dated 20.04.06)
24. PAN, TAN Numbers are confidential and cannot be disclosed. (05/IC(A)/CIC/2006 dated 03.03.06)
25. One cannot prefer a second appeal directly with the Commission without first preferring the first appeal. (CIC/A/1/2006 dated 18.01.2006)
26. PIOs cannot appeal against the decisions of first appellate authorities. (06/IC(A)/CIC/2006 dated 03.03.06). However, a closer look at section 19(3) makes it clear that the IC has erred. Whilst practically speaking, an officer in his capacity as PIO cannot appeal the decision of his senior officer in the capacity of appellate authority, the wording of section 19(3) leaves it open to the PIO to appeal against the decision of his senior officer, i.e., the appellate authority.
27. Exemption provided to the organizations listed in Second Schedule of the Act are absolute in nature. (CIC/AT/A/2006/00055 and 30 dated 27.04.06)
28. Names of officers who are under discreet watch due to suspicion of corruption but still have been promoted have to be disclosed. (CIC/MA/A/2006/116 dated 01.05.2006)
29. Penalty can be imposed on all officers, not only PIOs. An officer whose assistance has been sought under section 5(5) by the PIO may be penalized if he fails to provide such assistance. (Adjunct to CIC/WB/2006/00018 dated 28.09.2006)
30. Reply should be provided in the same language in which the application has been made as long as it is a local or national language. (CIC/WB/A/2006/00117)
31. A decision in first appeal has to be signed by the First Appellate Authority and not by the PIO or the APIO. (CIC/OK/A/2007/01302)
32. An applicant has full rights to be given the copy of the objections filed by a "third party" against disclosure of information by the PIO. (CIC/AT/A/2007/01297)