Third-party information is governed principally by:
Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It applies where the CPIO/SPIO intends to disclose information or a record, or part of it, which:
and has been treated as confidential by that third party. (indiacode.nic.in)
RTI Request ↓ Third-Party Information + Treated as Confidential ↓ Notice to Third Party ↓ Representation ↓ PIO Decision ↓ Disclosure / Refusal
Section 11 is primarily a procedural safeguard, not an automatic exemption.
Section 2(n) defines third party as:
A person other than the citizen making a request for information.
It expressly includes:
A public authority.
Third Party can be:
Third party always means a private company.
❌ Wrong.
A public authority can also be a third party.
Section 11 is triggered when all the relevant conditions are present:
Section 11 does not apply merely because another person is mentioned in the document.
The statutory confidentiality condition is important. (indiacode.nic.in)
This is one of the most important UPSC points.
Substantive exemptions.
Third-party consultation procedure.
Section 8 → "Can this information be disclosed?"
Section 11 → "What procedure must be followed before deciding disclosure of qualifying third-party information?"
Section 11 automatically exempts all third-party information.
❌ Wrong.
Section 11 becomes relevant where the PIO:
intends to disclose
the information or record, or part thereof.
The third-party consultation process is therefore part of the decision-making procedure.
Request → Initial Assessment → Proposed Disclosure → Section 11 Notice → Third-Party Representation → Final Decision.
The PIO must give the third party:
Written notice
of:
The notice must be given:
Within 5 days from receipt of the RTI request.
Third-Party Notice → 5 days.
The third party must be given an opportunity to make a submission about whether the information should be disclosed.
The submission may be:
Third Party → Right to be heard before disclosure decision.
The third party must be given:
10 days
from receipt of the notice to make a representation against the proposed disclosure. (indiacode.nic.in)
5 → Notice.
10 → Representation.
Third party gets 30 days to respond.
❌ Wrong.
Statutory opportunity: → 10 days.
The third party's submission must be:
Kept in view
while the PIO decides whether to disclose the information.
The PIO is not merely forwarding the third party's objection.
The PIO remains the statutory decision-maker.
Third party decides whether information will be disclosed.
❌ Wrong.
PIO decides.
This is perhaps the most important conceptual point.
≠
Automatic refusal.
Third party → Objects.
PIO → Considers objection.
PIO → Applies RTI Act.
PIO → Decides disclosure/refusal.
Section 11 gives the third party a right of participation, not an absolute right to block disclosure.
Section 11 contains an important public-interest principle.
Except in the case of:
trade or commercial secrets protected by law,
disclosure may be allowed where:
public interest in disclosure outweighs any possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party.
Third-Party Harm vs Public Interest
The Act recognises public accountability as capable of outweighing third-party interests.
The public-interest proviso in Section 11 specifically excludes:
trade or commercial secrets protected by law.
This is an important qualification.
Third-Party Information → Public-interest balancing.
BUT:
Protected Trade/Commercial Secret → Special statutory protection.
Public interest always overrides protected trade secrets under Section 11.
❌ Wrong.
These provisions often operate together.
Protects:
where disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party, subject to its statutory public-interest proviso.
Provides:
Section 8(1)(d) → Substantive protection.
Section 11 → Third-party procedure.
Third-party information can also involve personal data.
A citizen requests:
Section 8(1)(j) + Section 11 + Other applicable provisions.
Section 11 handles the third-party procedure; the substantive exemption must be found elsewhere where applicable.
A public authority may possess information supplied by a private company.
Examples:
Section 8(1)(d) + Section 11.
Third-party consultation does not replace the substantive exemption analysis.
A third party may provide information in a fiduciary context.
Section 8(1)(e) + Section 11.
The PIO should separately ask:
Third-party information may also contain copyrighted material.
Section 9 + Section 11.
Private consultant → Supplies copyrighted report.
Public authority → Holds report.
Citizen → Seeks copy.
Section 11 provides consultation.
Section 9 may provide a substantive copyright-based refusal ground.
The definition of third party expressly includes:
A public authority.
A State department requests information held by a Central public authority and supplied by it in confidence.
That other public authority can fall within the statutory concept of third party.
Third-party information means information belonging only to private persons.
❌ Wrong.
Section 11 covers information which:
relates to
a third party
or
has been supplied by
a third party.
The two phrases are not identical.
Information may concern a company but have been generated by the government.
That may still require careful Section 11 analysis if the statutory conditions are met.
Section 11 applies where the information:
has been treated as confidential by the third party.
Potential Section 11 process.
Any information concerning a third party automatically triggers Section 11.
❌ Wrong.
The statutory conditions matter.
Important distinction.
May trigger Section 11 consultation.
Provides the legal basis for withholding information.
Confidentiality → Consultation.
Exemption → Disclosure Decision.
Section 11 does not itself turn all confidential information into exempt information.
Where the third party has been given an opportunity to make a representation under Section 11(2), the PIO must decide:
Whether or not to disclose
within:
40 days from receipt of the RTI request.
This is stated notwithstanding Section 7. (indiacode.nic.in)
Third-Party Case → 40 days.
The ordinary RTI response period is generally:
30 days.
Third-party consultation requires additional procedure.
Normal → 30 days.
Third Party → Up to 40 days.
Third-party information must always be decided within 30 days.
❌ Wrong.
The Act provides a special 40-day framework.
RTI request received.
Third-party notice.
Third party gets:
10 days
to represent.
PIO decides within:
40 days from receipt of RTI request.
5 → 10 → 40.
The Act permits the third party to make a submission:
Third party can respond only through a written affidavit.
❌ Wrong.
The Act allows written or oral representation.
The PIO must consider the third party's representation.
But:
The PIO makes the final disclosure decision at the first administrative level.
Third Party → Representation.
PIO → Decision.
FAA → First Appeal.
CIC/SIC → Second Appeal.
The Section 11 process should not be viewed as:
Third Party vs Government.
There are actually three interests:
Citizen's right + Public interest + Third-party interests.
A first appeal can be filed where the applicant challenges a disclosure refusal.
But Section 19 contains an important special rule where a third party is challenging an order to disclose its information.
A third party aggrieved by an order under Section 11 directing disclosure may appeal within:
30 days from the date of the order.
Third Party Appeal → 30 days.
Where an appeal before the Information Commission concerns information relating to a third party, the Commission must give the third party:
A reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Section 19(4) expressly provides this safeguard. (indiacode.nic.in)
Third-party procedural protection continues beyond the PIO stage.
PIO → Decides to disclose.
Third Party → Objects.
PIO → Orders disclosure.
Third Party → First Appeal within 30 days.
Then:
FAA → Decision.
Possible:
Second Appeal → Information Commission.
The third party can challenge an order directing disclosure.
Under Section 19(5), where an appeal is against a denial:
The burden to prove that the denial was justified lies on the CPIO/SPIO.
The public authority bears the burden of justifying denial in appeal proceedings.
The applicant does not have to prove the entire negative case that the refusal was unlawful.
When an appeal concerns third-party information:
Third Party → Reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Natural justice is embedded into the appellate framework.
The Section 11 balancing principle asks:
Is public interest in disclosure greater than possible harm/injury to the third party?
Stronger public-interest argument.
But:
Protected trade secret → Special statutory protection.
Third-party personal information may involve strong privacy concerns.
Employee records.
Possible approach:
Personal sensitive details → Protect.
Public accountability information → Consider disclosure where legally justified.
Current Section 8(1)(j) must be considered alongside Section 11.
A third party need not be a private individual or business.
Section 2(n) expressly includes a public authority.
A third party saying:
"This is confidential"
does not automatically decide the case.
Third-party objection is evidence/input, not the final legal decision.
If only part of the third-party record is sensitive:
Contract ├── Trade secret → Protect. └── Public expenditure → Potential disclosure.
Section 10 → Sever where reasonably possible.
Third-party interests should be protected proportionately.
If information about a third party is routinely required for public accountability, proactive disclosure can reduce repeated disputes.
Proactive disclosure must remain consistent with:
This is a high-value governance example.
Government → Procurement integrity.
Citizen → Transparency.
Company → Commercial confidentiality.
Section 8(1)(d) + Section 11 + Public Interest + Severability.
Public-private partnerships can create complex information situations.
Private concessionaire + Government contract + Public infrastructure.
Third-party provisions are particularly important in modern collaborative governance.
Banks may be third parties where information is supplied to government/regulatory authorities.
8(1)(d) + 8(1)(e) + 8(1)(j) + Section 11.
Tax information may involve:
Third-party consultation does not itself establish disclosure or refusal.
The substantive exemptions still apply.
NGOs, associations and other organisations may supply information to government.
Third-party status applies based on statutory definition, not on whether the entity is profit-making.
Third-party interests can be overridden in some cases where the statutory balancing provision applies.
Trade/commercial secrets protected by law receive special treatment under Section 11.
Where third-party material is copyrighted:
Third Party + Copyright → Section 11 Procedure
Potential substantive ground: → Section 9.
Third-party procedure and copyright exemption are separate questions.
The Information Commission can examine:
The Section 11 procedure reflects natural-justice values by providing an affected third party an opportunity to be heard.
Fair Procedure.
Third-party status and legal ownership are different concepts.
A company may supply a document created by another entity.
Third Party → The company.
Copyright Owner → Another person.
Do not confuse:
"Who supplied the information?"
with:
"Who owns the legal right?"
Confidentiality may arise from:
Confidentiality alone is not necessarily equivalent to an RTI exemption.
The PIO must identify the applicable legal protection.
Is it third-party information?
→ Check Section 2(n).
Was it supplied by/relates to third party?
→ Relevant.
Was it treated as confidential?
→ Section 11 process may apply.
Does PIO intend disclosure?
→ Notice required.
Third party objects?
→ Consider representation.
Does substantive exemption apply?
→ Section 8/9 as relevant.
Does public interest outweigh harm?
→ Apply statutory balancing where applicable.
Can part be disclosed?
→ Section 10.
PIO → Gives notice to third party.
Third party → Representation opportunity.
PIO → Final disclosure decision.
Third party → Can appeal an order directing disclosure.
→ Generally within 90 days under Section 19(3), subject to condonation.
5 → 10 → 40 → 30 → 90.
Do not confuse:
Section 11 notice.
with:
Section 6(3) transfer.
They arise from different provisions.
11 → Notice in 5.
6(3) → Transfer in 5.
Section 11(3) creates a special third-party decision timeline:
40 days from receipt of the RTI request.
It operates:
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7.
This explains why third-party cases have a special 40-day framework instead of the ordinary 30-day response period.
The PIO may ultimately:
Third-party participation does not predetermine the outcome.
A record may contain:
Third-party-sensitive information + Public-accountability information.
Section 10 → Redaction/severance.
Protect legitimate third-party interests without unnecessarily withholding public information.
Major challenges include:
Ensure timely written notice.
Document:
Do not rely simply on:
"Third party objected."
Release lawful portions.
Government contracts should clearly address:
Train officials in:
Track:
Use:
Defines third party.
PIO notice within 5 days.
Third party gets 10 days to represent.
PIO decides within 40 days.
Decision must consider the third party's representation.
Public interest may outweigh possible harm to third-party interests.
Protected trade/commercial secrets.
Third party may appeal an order directing disclosure within 30 days.
Third party gets reasonable opportunity of being heard in relevant appeal proceedings.
Third party means only a private person.
❌ Wrong.
It includes a public authority.
Section 11 exempts all third-party information.
❌ Wrong.
It establishes a consultation procedure in specified cases.
Third-party objection automatically blocks disclosure.
❌ Wrong.
The PIO makes the final decision.
Third party gets 30 days to submit representation.
❌ Wrong.
10 days.
PIO has 30 days in every third-party case.
❌ Wrong.
Section 11 provides a special 40-day decision framework.
PIO must notify the third party within 10 days.
❌ Wrong.
Notice within 5 days.
10 days → Third-party representation.
Third-party representation must be written.
❌ Wrong.
It may be written or oral.
Third party decides whether disclosure will occur.
❌ Wrong.
PIO decides after considering the representation.
Section 11 is the same as Section 8(1)(d).
❌ Wrong.
Section 11 → Procedure.
8(1)(d) → Commercial-confidence exemption.
Public interest always overrides trade secrets.
❌ Wrong.
Section 11 contains a special exception for trade/commercial secrets protected by law.
Only the applicant can appeal a third-party disclosure decision.
❌ Wrong.
The affected third party can appeal an order directing disclosure.
Third party has no role before the Information Commission.
❌ Wrong.
A third party must receive a reasonable opportunity of being heard in relevant appeal proceedings.
Section 11 eliminates the need to examine Section 8.
❌ Wrong.
Substantive exemptions still need to be considered.
All confidential information is third-party information.
❌ Wrong.
The statutory conditions of Section 11 must be satisfied.
Third-party status and copyright ownership are the same.
❌ Wrong.
They are separate legal concepts.
Section 11 of the RTI Act establishes a procedural safeguard for information relating to or supplied by a third party that has been treated as confidential. It balances the applicant's right to information with legitimate interests of the affected third party.
Section 2(n):
Third party → Person other than the information seeker → Includes a public authority.
Disclosure may be allowed where:
Public Interest
Possible Harm to Third Party
subject to the special protection relating to trade/commercial secrets protected by law.
Section 11 represents a balanced model of RTI administration: the third party receives an opportunity to participate, but the final decision remains with the public authority and is subject to the statutory appellate system.
