According to the Court, denying access to material because it is too detailed would be equivalent to creating a new exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

According to a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade v. Kamal Jit Chibber, an authority can not refuse information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) on the grounds that it is cumbersome.

If the Court grants this argument, Justice Subramonium Prasad stated, it would be equivalent to adding one additional exemption to Section 8 of the RTI Act.

"None of the exemptions listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act apply to the information requested by the Respondent [RTI Applicant] in this case. According to the Writ Petition, the only explanation provided for not giving the information requested by the Respondent is that it is too large and can not be provided by the authorities. The Court stated that "it will amount to adding one more exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act if this Court accepts the contentions raised in the present Writ Petition."

The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued an order instructing it to furnish complete and categorical information sought by a person named Kamal Jit Chibber. The Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT) filed an appeal disputing the CIC's judgment, which the Court dismissed.

The CIC issued two directives on December 25, 2015, and January 25, 2016. The Commission directed IIFT to grant Chibber access to the records in the first order. Nonetheless, the CIC ordered the Institute to give categorical information on each of the 27 issues he brought up in the order from January 2016.

IIFT informed the CIC that Chibber has been submitting a lot of repetitive RTIs and has been requesting a lot of data and documentation. It told the High Court that Chibber used to work for the Institute and had submitted more than 60 RTI applications, each with 20–30 questions that would take a significant amount of resources to respond to.

According to the Institute, Chibber requested a lot of material, the disclosure of which was prohibited by Section 7(9) of the RTI Act since it would have required significant financial resources.

The Bench denied the claim that the two orders issued by the CIC directly conflicted with one another after reviewing the case.

The Bench stated that none of the exemptions listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act apply to the information being sought.

"The petitioner does not claim that the information sought by the respondent will violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, that it is specifically prohibited from being published by a court of law or tribunal, that disclosing it could be considered contempt of court, that it would violate a parliamentary or state legislature privilege, or that the information includes trade secrets, intellectual property, or commercial confidence that would make a third party less competitive."

The Court, therefore, upheld the CIC order and rejected the petition by the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.