Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4453

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
P R Ramesh, Commissioner
Vijay Bishnoi – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Competition Commission of India – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/CPCOI/A/2025/631708

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mukesh Kumar Tiwari
For the Respondents: Sukesh Mishra, Nitin Kumar, S R Bhadaina, Neha Adlakha

Information on ongoing disciplinary proceedings exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(h) if disclosure would impede process, based on authority's subjective apprehension; upheld where enquiry incomplete despite chargesheet issuance.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(h) - Exemption from disclosure - Information pertaining to ongoing disciplinary proceedings, including draft chargesheet, advice sought from vigilance authority, investigation reports, and inter-authority correspondences - Disclosure would impede process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, even where apprehension exists - Burden on authority to demonstrate impeding, but subjective satisfaction suffices if proceedings incomplete - Ongoing enquiry not concluded, inquiry report not submitted - Denial upheld as disclosure could hamper fairness and integrity of process. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(h) - Interpretation - Term 'investigation' interpreted broadly to include disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications - Protection for administrative confidentiality and internal consultative mechanisms - Subjective satisfaction of authority paramount; mere reproduction of section insufficient, but apprehension of hindrance justifies denial - No larger public interest demonstrated to override exemption. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
Appellant sought certified copies of draft chargesheet, first stage advice from vigilance authority, investigation reports, and all correspondences related to disciplinary proceedings against self. CPIO denied under Section 8(1)(h) citing ongoing proceedings; transferred portions to concerned authority which similarly denied. First Appellate Authority upheld denial. Second appeal before Commission argued proceedings advanced with inquiry report ready, final chargesheet issued, and no proof of impeding provided.

Findings of Court:
Enquiry not completed; disclosure of pre-chargesheet documents and inter-authority correspondences would hamper ongoing disciplinary process.

Issues: Whether information related to ongoing disciplinary proceedings exempt under Section 8(1)(h) despite chargesheet issuance and inquiry report preparation; burden to prove impeding and applicability where proceedings not concluded.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 8(1)(h) protects information where disclosure would impede investigation, including disciplinary enquiries; subjective apprehension suffices even without final decision; internal opinions, views, and consultations confidential to prevent hampering proceedings.

Result: Second appeal dismissed; denial upheld.

Table of Content
1. rti application details and cpio denials under section 8(1)(h) (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appellant argues proof of impeding required for exemption (Para 6)
3. respondent defends denial citing ongoing disciplinary proceedings (Para 7)
4. commission upholds exemption due to ongoing enquiry (Para 8 , 9)
5. appeal dismissed, upholding pio decision (Para 10)

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2025 seeking information on the following points:

1. Complete and certified copy of the 'Draft Chargesheet' sent by Competition Commission of India (CCI) in Case against Sh. Vijay Bishnoi, Deputy Director (Law) for obtaining 1st Stage advice of CVC. [F. No. C-14011/1/2023-Vig(Pt)] [Annexure for reference: Covering page of Final Chargesheet dated 03.10.2023 issued to Shri Vijay Bishnoi]

2. Complete and certified copy of 1st Stage Advice sent by CVC to CCI, Director (Law) & CVO [Annexure for reference: Copy of communication dated 25.09.2023 sent by CVC to CVO, CCI]

3. Complete Copy of (i) self-contained Note (ii) copy of Investigation Report containing allegations in brief, result of Investigation (iii) copy of complaint/ source information received; (iv) version of Shri Vijay Bishnoi and reasons why the version of Shri Vijay Bishnoi was not tenable/ acceptable and conclusion of Investigating officer (v) comments of CVO and DA on Investigation Report etc. sent by CCI to CVC for seeking 1st stage advice in relation to aforementioned subject matter.

4. Complete and certified copy of all communications/ correspondences/ Letters/ Notes between CCI and CVC in relation to aforementioned subject matter [Please refer- F. No. C-14011/1/2023-Vig(Pt)].

2. The CPIO, CVC vide letter dated 01.04.2025 stated as under:

“..Points 1 and 3

These points are transferred to CPIO, Competition Commission of India u/s 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 for appropriate action, as the information sought originated from them.

Points 2 and 4

The case in which information is sought has not reached its logical conclusion, as per record. Therefore, the information sought in these paras is denied under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which states "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders".

It may be noted that Central information Commission in case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007/10/11 in matter of Sh. Shankar Sharma and others Vs. The Director of Income Tax decides that "the term 'Investigation" used in Section 8(1) (h), in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of 'investigation one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken…"

3. The CPIO, CCI replied vide letter dated 04.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“..I am to refer to your RTI Application, Registration No. CPCOI/R/X/25/00001 and dated 01.04.2025 received in this office on 04.04.2025 from Central Vigilance Commission (Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on 04/04/2025 With Reference Number: CVCOM/R/E/25/00363) on transfer basis from u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 and on the above-mentioned subject.

2. In this regard, please note that the response of query no. 1 & 3 is as follows:

"All the information, as sought by the applicant, pertains to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant and other matters pertaining to ongoing disciplinary proceeding/inquiry/investigation, and thus, are exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 in terms of Sec 8(1)(h) of the Act, which states that information which would imped the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4453

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONP R Ramesh, CommissionerVijay Bishnoi – AppellantVersusCPIO: Competition Commission of India – RespondentSecond Appeal No. CIC/CPCOI/A/2025/631708

Information on ongoing disciplinary proceedings exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(h) if disclosure would impede process, based on authority's subjective apprehension; upheld where enquiry incomplete despite chargesheet issuance.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
P R Ramesh, Commissioner
Vijay Bishnoi – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Competition Commission of India – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/CPCOI/A/2025/631708