Editorial Review — Reviewer Onboarding

This site is used by citizens filing their first RTI, by Public Information Officers training in their role, and by First Appellate Authorities drafting reasoned orders. A wrong fee rate, a stale case citation, a superseded clause — each can cause a citizen to miss a deadline or a PIO to sign an appealable order.

We already:

• Verify every published article — a green “Verified” badge appears at the top of the page, backed by the entry in conf/verified.json.
• Cite statute and case law — every ground, exemption, and procedural claim links to the Act section and the binding authority.
• Link to primary sources — CIC orders, SC and HC judgements (via India Kanoon or the court's own portal).
• Track last-reviewed date — visible at the bottom of every article; auto-emitted as `dateModified` in the article's schema.org JSON-LD.

What we do not yet have — independent editorial oversight by people who wrote the rulings, drafted the orders, and appeared in the appeals that shape Indian RTI practice. That is what this panel is for.

• Retired Central or State Information Commissioners — any tenure, any jurisdiction.
• Senior RTI advocates — at least ten years of pleaded RTI appeals in the High Courts or the Commissions.
• Retired Public Information Officers at senior rank — Joint Secretary / Commissioner-level, with a substantive RTI docket history.
• Retired Secretaries / Additional Secretaries who administered Section 4 disclosures.
• Academics specialising in transparency law — tenured faculty with published work on the RTI Act or comparative information-rights regimes.

• Frequency. Once per quarter (four times a year).
• Duration. 30 to 45 minutes.
• Format. Video call (Zoom / Google Meet) or a written exchange — whichever the reviewer prefers.
• Agenda. The editor brings 5-10 articles that have been updated since the last sitting. The reviewer flags any factual error, stale citation, or tonal issue. The editor takes the note and fixes.

We may also reach out for a single-article review when the article concerns the reviewer's specialism. Example: an article on PIO procedure under Section 7 might be sent to a retired Information Commissioner who decided many §7(8)(i) matters. A single-article review is usually 15-20 minutes, written.

Reviewers do not draft content. The editor drafts; the reviewer flags errors or suggests sharper framing. All edits are the editor's responsibility.

• Public acknowledgement. Reviewers are listed on the Editorial Board page with their designation and tenure — opt-out on request.
• A direct line to the editor. Feedback loops are fast; corrections typically go live within 48 hours.
• Citation credit. Articles a reviewer has substantively shaped carry a small footnote: *“Reviewed by [Name], former Chief Information Commissioner, [State].”*
• Copies of updates. Reviewers receive a quarterly digest of what changed, for their own records.
• No honorarium or fee (the site runs on ad revenue and is not a commercial publication). We offer this as public-interest volunteer work.

• Not a news outlet. We cover the Act, not daily headlines. We archive significant CIC orders and landmark court rulings; we do not report on breaking news.
• Not a litigation service. Our tools (Generator, First Appeal Builder, PIO Reply Checker, Question Builder) assist the citizen to draft their own application or appeal. They do not file on anyone's behalf.
• Not a partisan platform. Reviewers from across the political spectrum are welcome, so long as the feedback is factual and procedural.

1. Statute first, case-law second, commentary last. Every claim cites either a section of the Act, a binding judgement, or a published CIC order. Opinion is clearly marked.
2. No “why” questions in sample RTIs. We teach citizens to ask for records, not answers. See our drafting guide at Ask for records, not answers.
3. Case-law currency. After every significant SC / HC ruling, we update the relevant articles within a week.
4. Plain-language rule. We aim for a ninth-standard reading level on citizen-facing pages. Legal-practitioner pages (PIO framework, FAA checklist) are written for the trained reader.
5. DPDP-compliant privacy. We follow the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the 2025 Rules. See our Privacy Policy.

• Response within 24 hours for any substantive correction notice.
• Fix within 48 hours when the correction is clearly supported by source.
• Credit (on request) in the article's footer: *“Correction by [Name], [date]“*.
• Public changelog. See corrections page for reporting errors and the SLA.

Write to [email protected] with the subject line “Editorial Review — Interest” and a short note:

• Your role(s) in RTI practice over the last ten years.
• Your specialism (e.g. Section 8 case law, police records, service records, forest rights, scheme-specific).
• Whether you are available for quarterly sittings, single-article reviews, or both.
• Whether you are comfortable with public acknowledgement on the Editorial Board page.

The editor will reply within three working days.

• Editor. Shrawan Pathak. Contact: [email protected].
• Verified articles. Around 190 pages carry the green “Verified” badge, reflecting editor-level review.
• Review cadence. Last reviewed dates are published on every article.
• Editorial calendar. Quarterly reviewer sittings are planned from Q2 2026.

• Editorial Policy
• What is RTI Wiki?
• Report a correction
• Editor — Shrawan Pathak
• Privacy Policy

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.