Section 21 — Protection of Action Taken in Good Faith

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder.

In one line: the shield covers actions under the Act or its rules done honestly — disclosure decisions, transfers, fee demands within the rules — and nothing else. </WRAP>

• Who: “any person” — the PIO, the FAA, the Information Commissioner, and anyone lawfully acting under the Act (the APIO who forwards, the officer who supplies records).
• What: things done or intended to be done under the Act or its rules — so a lawful disclosure that harms a third party, a §11 notice issued in procedure, a fee demanded as the rules actually prescribe.
• Standard: good faith is an honest belief on reasonable grounds that the action was lawful — not merely the absence of provable bad intent.

• Mala fide conduct — refusal to hurt the applicant, disclosure to favour someone. §21 is no defence, and §20 penalties plus disciplinary action ride on the finding.
• Acts outside the Act — an officer's conduct under other laws gets no §21 cover from RTI work.
• Negligent delay as a pattern — commissions routinely find that months of silence is not “an action in good faith intended to be done under the Act”; §20's ₹250/day follows.
• Commission directions — protection attaches to good-faith action, and ignoring binding directions is the opposite: officers who follow orders in good faith are protected; those who defy them and then plead good faith are not.

No amendments.

• Attacking a refusal: the winning line is not “sue the PIO” (§23 bars the civil route) — it is the §19 appeal, where the officer must justify the refusal on the record; §21 never immunises an unjustified one.
• Naming mala fide: say it with facts — dates showing a pattern, unexplained selective refusal, personal animus indications. A bare allegation is dismissed; a factual one defeats §21 and invites §20.
• For honest PIOs: the section is why a PIO can disclose third-party information after a proper §11 process without fearing the third party's suit — the statute took that risk onto itself.

Used as a defence in rare civil suits by third parties aggrieved by disclosure. Not available to the PIO whose delay or refusal is under Section 20 scrutiny.

For drafting RTIs or appeals engaging this section, use the First RTI template or the First Appeal template. See How to fill an RTI application for structural help.

Not if the disclosure was a good-faith act under the Act — that is §21's exact purpose. The remedy for a wrongful disclosure is the Commission (§18) and the department, not a suit against the officer personally.

No — appeals are proceedings under the Act itself; §21 speaks to suits and prosecutions against the officer, not to your §19 rights.

Defiance of a binding direction is difficult to square with good faith; commissions have penalised exactly this, and §21 has not protected it.

§20 punishes the officer's defaults (delay, mala fide refusal, wrong fee demands); §21 protects the officer's honest acts. They are opposite sides of the same accountability design.

• Back to the full RTI Act
• Section 6 — Request for information
• Section 7 — Disposal
• Section 8 — Exemptions
• Section 19 — Appeals
• All explanations
• Landmark RTI decisions
• The RTI Playbook book

1. Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 21.
2. RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 (where applicable).
3. DPDP Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025 (where applicable).
4. Department of Personnel and Training, Guide on the RTI Act, 2005.

Last reviewed on: 27 August 2026. Verbatim text added; the shield's scope and limits laid out; the unverified 1964 good-faith citation dropped; citizen-side use (mala fide with facts, appeal not suit) added.