The work of government information disclosure is not only an important part of the construction of a rule of law government, but also an important standard for measuring the effectiveness of the construction of a rule of law government. The establishment and promotion of the government information disclosure system is of great significance for ensuring that the people legally obtain government information, promoting the transformation of government functions, and building a rule of law government. The Supreme People's Court issued the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Government Information Disclosure" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation") today (20th), which will come into effect on June 1, 2025. Considering the significant revisions made to the original judicial interpretation in the Interpretation, the Supreme People's Court has adopted the approach of formulating a new judicial interpretation and simultaneously abolishing the original judicial interpretation of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Government Information Disclosure" issued in 2011. The Interpretation consists of fifteen articles, mainly including the following aspects: firstly, it stipulates the acceptance of administrative cases related to government information disclosure. The Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information provide typological provisions for the handling decisions of government information disclosure applications, clarifying that administrative agencies may make procedural decisions regarding the applicant's government information disclosure application, such as making it public, not making it public, unable to provide it, not processing it, and other procedures. The Interpretation echoes this in the acceptance situation clause. In addition, Article 23, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the revised Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China in 2023 stipulates that if an applicant applies for government information disclosure but the administrative agency refuses to disclose it, the applicant shall first apply for administrative reconsideration to the administrative reconsideration agency. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the administrative reconsideration decision, they may file an administrative lawsuit with the people's court in accordance with the law. Regarding the situation of "non disclosure" in the above regulations, after communication with relevant departments, it mainly refers to the decision made by administrative agencies in accordance with Article 14, Article 15, and Article 16 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information not to disclose. In addition, the latest judicial interpretation also stipulates in the acceptance provisions that citizens, legal persons, or other organizations believe that government information provided by administrative agencies does not comply with their application content or that government information publicly disclosed by administrative agencies infringes on their trade secrets, personal privacy, and other situations. The second is to clarify the plaintiff's qualifications and eligible defendants in administrative cases of government information disclosure. In terms of the qualification of plaintiffs in administrative cases involving government information disclosure, it is consistent with the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law, which states that citizens, legal persons, or other organizations who file lawsuits claiming that the disclosure or non disclosure of government information by administrative agencies infringes on their legitimate rights and interests belong to the "interested citizens, legal persons, or other organizations" stipulated in Article 25 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law. For the determination of eligible defendants, the Interpretation combines the two situations of active disclosure and disclosure upon application stipulated in the Government Information Disclosure Regulations, and makes provisions for the determination of defendants in accordance with the principle of "whoever acts, who is the defendant" stipulated in Article 26 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law. In addition, the "Interpretation" also combines Article 6 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Correct Determination of the Qualifications of Defendants in Administrative Litigation of Local People's Governments at or above the County Level" and Article 4 of the Regulations on Government Information Disclosure to regulate the qualifications of defendants in government information disclosure agencies designated by local people's governments at or above the county level. The third is to determine the burden of proof for the defendant and plaintiff in administrative cases involving government information disclosure. Firstly, government information disclosure litigation must follow the basic principle of Article 34 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law, which stipulates that the defendant bears the burden of proof for the legality of administrative actions. In addition, provisions have been made on the sub items of the burden of proof that should be borne for the different claims made by the defendant. Secondly, in terms of the burden of proof for the plaintiff, according to Article 38 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law, in cases where the plaintiff sues the defendant for failing to perform their statutory duties, the plaintiff shall provide evidence of their application to the defendant. In government information disclosure litigation, if the defendant is required to disclose government information, the plaintiff shall provide evidence of their previous application to the administrative agency. Considering that the disclosure of government information involving trade secrets and personal privacy may cause damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved, in the lawsuit where the plaintiff demands that the defendant not disclose relevant government information, the plaintiff should provide evidence that the government information involves their trade secrets and personal privacy. Thirdly, in response to the problem of a very small number of parties abusing their rights to apply for government information disclosure and litigation in judicial practice, the "Interpretation" also stipulates the evidence that the plaintiff's provision of administrative agency disclosure or non disclosure may cause damage to their rights and interests. The fourth is to improve the adjudication methods for administrative cases involving government information disclosure. Firstly, provisions shall be made for the non filing or rejection of lawsuits in the adjudication process for actions that do not have a practical impact on the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, including situations such as statutory reconsideration without applying for reconsideration, procedural notification actions, and decisions to charge information processing fees for separate lawsuits. Secondly, starting from the substantive response and support for the parties' demand to obtain government information in accordance with the law, the Supreme People's Court regulates the defendant's disclosure of government information in the judgment performance clause. Article 73 of the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates that if the people's court, after trial, finds out that the defendant has a payment obligation according to law, it shall order the defendant to fulfill the payment obligation. In government information disclosure litigation, if the people's court finds through trial that the defendant is legally responsible for the disclosure of government information, it shall order the defendant to disclose it within the statutory time limit. Thirdly, according to Article 74 of the Administrative Litigation Law, provisions shall be made for the application of confirmed illegal judgments in government information disclosure litigation. Fourthly, according to Article 69 of the Administrative Litigation Law, if the sued administrative action is legal or the reason for the plaintiff's request for the defendant to perform its statutory duties is not established, the people's court shall dismiss the lawsuit request. The Supreme People's Court, from the perspective that the substantive rights and interests of the parties have already been protected, and in combination with legal provisions, regulates the situations where the plaintiff's lawsuit request cannot be supported, including situations where the administrative agency's decision is legal, and where the reason for the defendant's failure to respond within the prescribed time is not established. The fifth is to retain the preventive relief system in government information disclosure litigation. The overall administrative litigation system in our country belongs to post remedy, and generally only provides legal protection when the administrative action has been taken and the infringement of rights has become a fact. However, considering the field of government information disclosure, government information involving trade secrets and personal privacy has special protection value. Once it is disclosed in disorder, it will cause irreversible infringement of rights. Therefore, Article 11 of the original judicial interpretation stipulates the prevention and relief system in government information disclosure litigation to reflect the requirement for flawless and effective protection of rights. In the process of revising and formulating the Interpretation, the original provisions were retained, namely, the plaintiff requested the people's court to order the defendant not to disclose government information before the government information was published, or the plaintiff applied to stop disclosing government information during the litigation period. The promulgation of the Interpretation will further clarify the rules for handling administrative cases related to government information disclosure, which has a positive significance for the unified application of laws. Next, the Supreme People's Court will continue to play the role of administrative trials in supervising and supporting administrative organs to administer according to law, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and substantially resolving administrative disputes, providing strong judicial service guarantees for the integrated construction of a rule of law country, a rule of law government, and a rule of law society. (New Society)