Section 9 of Right to Information Act:

Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.

Explained:

Section 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with the rejection of information requests where disclosure would infringe copyright held by a person other than the State. This provision balances the public’s right to information with the legal protection given to intellectual property.

What Does Section 9 of the RTI Act Say?

Section 9 authorises a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to reject an RTI application if providing access to the requested information would involve infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. This provision operates alongside the exemptions provided under Section 8 of the Act.

For example, if an applicant requests a complete copy of a privately owned, copyrighted book held by a public authority, the request may be rejected under Section 9 if disclosure would infringe the owner’s copyright. However, the provision does not automatically exempt every copyrighted document from disclosure.

Important Judgments on Section 9 of the RTI Act

1. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011)

The Supreme Court examined requests for examination-related instructions and model answers held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. It clarified that Section 9 applies when disclosure would infringe copyright belonging to someone other than the State. The Court found that Section 9 could not be invoked merely because the material was copyrighted by the public authority itself.

2. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

The Supreme Court considered access to evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act. The judgment explained the scope of the right to information and the exemptions available under the Act. It is important when understanding the relationship between transparency, examination records and legitimate confidentiality, although it was not primarily a ruling on Section 9.

Conclusion

Section 9 of the RTI Act, 2005, protects third-party copyright from infringement through disclosure under the RTI mechanism. However, public information officers should examine who owns the copyright and whether disclosure would actually constitute infringement before rejecting an application. Applicants may challenge an unjustified rejection through the applicable appeal process under Section 19 of the Act.