RTI disclosure of a person's own criminal case cannot be refused without a specific exemption under the Act.

Information relating to a person's own criminal case cannot be withheld under the RTI Act, 2005 unless a specific exemption under Section 8(1) is established. Mere pendency of criminal proceedings is not enough, and Section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not create a general bar on disclosure. Where the trial has concluded and the requested material concerns the requester's own case, disclosure of the DD entry, investigation material and case diary will not be denied absent shown prejudice. Section 22 of the RTI Act gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws, so the disclosure order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether information relating to the respondent's own criminal case could be denied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after conclusion of the trial.

Analysis: Denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 must be justified with reference to a specific exemption under Section 8(1). The mere pendency of a criminal case is not enough by itself. Section 172(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not create a general bar against disclosure under the RTI Act, and the fact that documents had been supplied in the criminal trial under Section 208 further weakened the claim of prejudice. Since the trial had concluded and the request concerned the respondent's own case, disclosure of the DD entry, investigation material, and case diary was not shown to cause any prejudice. Section 22 of the RTI Act gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws.

Conclusion: The information could not be denied, and the order directing disclosure was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Information under the RTI Act can be denied only if a specific statutory exemption is established, and the RTI Act prevails over inconsistent provisions of other laws, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---