Home  /  Right to Information Act, 2005  /  Section 9

Section 9: Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases

Right to Information Act, 2005 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2005
Section 8 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 10

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 9

Section 9 provides an express, standalone statutory ground for rejection of an RTI request where granting access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in any person other than the State, operating independently of the general exemption regime under Section 8.

  • Standalone Ground for Refusal Outside Section 8: Operates with a non-obstante phrase ('Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8'), providing an autonomous basis for a PIO to reject a request for information if giving access would infringe copyright.
  • Exclusion of State Copyright from Exemption: Applies strictly to copyright subsisting in a 'person other than the State'; where copyright belongs to the Central Government, a State Government, or their instrumentalities, Section 9 cannot be invoked to refuse disclosure, reinforcing that public authorities cannot claim copyright against citizens.
  • Harmonization with Copyright Act, 1957 Fair Dealing: Requires a substantive legal inquiry into whether supplying certified copies, reproductions, or extracts would constitute actionable copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, or whether it qualifies as fair dealing under Section 52.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781: The Supreme Court analyzed Section 9 in the context of examination question papers and model answers; held that disclosure after the examination does not infringe the copyright of the examiners, and Section 9 protects third-party intellectual property from commercial exploitation, not public authorities from academic transparency.
  • Ferani Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia (2013) 3 SCC 734: The Supreme Court recognized that statutory filings, architectural plans, and regulatory disclosures submitted to public authorities cannot be withheld on specious claims of third-party copyright where larger public interest and statutory compliance are at stake.
  • The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Service (2016 SCC OnLine Del 5128): The Delhi High Court established that reproduction for educational and civic dissemination does not constitute copyright infringement where fair use and statutory purpose undergird the disclosure.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When resisting an RTI request under Section 9, the public authority or third party must establish: (i) the existence of a valid, subsisting copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957; (ii) that copyright ownership is vested in a private third party and not the State or its undertaking; and (iii) that providing certified copies or digital reproductions would exceed fair dealing and infringe exclusive economic rights under Section 14 and Section 51 of the Copyright Act.

Section 8 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 10