On 20 May 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Government Information Disclosure Administrative Cases (Fa Shi 2025 No. 8)” (关于审理政府信息公开行政案件适用法律若干问题的解释》(法释2025[8]号), hereinafter the “Interpretation”), which will take effect on June 1, replacing the 2011 version. The Interpretation aims to standardize the adjudication of government information disclosure cases and safeguard citizens’ right to know.
In response to new issues arising from the 2024 revision of the “Regulations on Government Information Disclosure”, the Interpretation further clarifies trial standards for government information disclosure administrative cases, qualifications of plaintiffs and defendants in such cases, allocation of the burden of proof, and preventive relief mechanisms.
Highlights of the Interpretation include:
- If a citizen is dissatisfied with government information that has been proactively disclosed by an administrative authority, the authority that disclosed the information shall be the defendant. If the dissatisfaction arises from a decision made in response to a disclosure request, the authority that issued the response shall be the defendant. If the authority fails to respond within the required deadline, the authority that received the application shall be the defendant.
- The defendant bears the burden of proof regarding the legality of actions such as disclosing or refusing to disclose government information. If the defendant claims that the information requested by the plaintiff constitutes state secrets and should not be disclosed, the defendant must provide evidence such as classification markings, confidentiality duration, or other supporting materials.
- Before the government information is made public, the plaintiff may request that the defendant refrain from disclosing the information, provided that the information involves the plaintiff’s trade secrets or personal privacy, and that non-disclosure would not cause significant harm to the public interest.
Photo by Woody Yan on Unsplash
Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team
