You are an Under-Secretary in a Ministry. A senior journalist files an RTI seeking the file noting on a controversial policy decision two years old. The file contains a Minister’s hand-written ‘I disagree’ note that was later over-written by the Secretary. The CPIO consults you; she is inclined to deny under Section 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers and deliberations. You note that the decision is past, no Cabinet status applies, and a similar disclosure was made in another Ministry last year. Your Section Officer says ‘precedent is risky’. What course of action would you take? Justify with the values involved.

Dilemma: Protecting deliberative space for ministerial dissent versus the citizen's right to know about a concluded policy decision two years old, with a closely analogous disclosure already made in a peer Ministry.

Stakeholders: The citizen-journalist seeking information; the Minister (privacy of past dissent); the Secretary; the CPIO; the CIC and appellate machinery; the wider public interested in accountable policy; future officers (precedent effect).

Options: (a) advise denial under Section 8(1)(i) on Cabinet papers/deliberations — legally weak post-decision, ignores Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) and the peer-Ministry precedent; (b) release the file in full without filtering — privacy and security risk on any incidentally sensitive items; (c) advise the CPIO to disclose under Section 10 severability — release the substantive file-noting including the Minister's 'I disagree' note and the Secretary's override, redact only items genuinely covered by Section 8 exemptions, and place a Section 4 proactive disclosure on the portal — the hard right.

Decision: Option (c). Reasons — RTI Act 2005 as accountability instrument (Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011, openness); Nolan principle of honesty in record-keeping; and 'precedent is risky' only when the precedent is wrong — here, peer-Ministry disclosure shows the lawful path (consistency).

Safeguard: Detailed note-sheet reasoning that walks through Section 8(1)(i), Section 10 and the peer-Ministry order; communicate the appeal-path within the statutory timeline; preserve the original file with a tamper-evident seal; copy the order to the CIC; flag in the Ministry's Section 4 register; brief the Minister and Secretary before release.