Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner
A public authority cannot deny information merely by saying an investigation is “pending”. It must show how disclosure would actually impede the investigation or prosecution — otherwise the information must be released.
Issue before the court
Whether the mere pendency of an investigation is enough to deny information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Facts in brief
Information was withheld on the ground that a tax investigation and recovery were pending. The applicant challenged the denial.
Holding / decision
The Delhi High Court held that Section 8(1)(h) does not permit a blanket denial just because an investigation is pending — the authority must show that disclosure would impede the process of investigation or prosecution. Section 8 is a restriction on a fundamental right and must be strictly construed: access is the rule and exemption the exception. The information was directed to be released.
To deny under Section 8(1)(h), the authority must demonstrate that disclosure would actually impede the investigation or prosecution — the mere pendency of an investigation is not a valid ground.
If your RTI is refused because a matter is “under investigation”, that alone is not a lawful reason — the office must show real harm to the investigation, or release the information.
When to cite this case
When information is denied citing a pending investigation under Section 8(1)(h) without any explanation of how disclosure would cause harm.
Later developments / current status
One of the most-cited RTI judgments on the investigation exemption, regularly relied on to defeat blanket “matter under investigation” refusals.
Source & verification
Related FileMyRTI services
Use CheckMyRTI to test a “pending investigation” refusal, then AppealMyRTI to challenge it.
Login / Sign up
Login With Google
Continue as GuestOr use your email Address
*We value your trust. Your information remains private and protected with FileMyRTI