How to defeat evasive PIO replies — a practical playbook

The most common RTI failure is not outright refusal. It's the evasive reply — selective answers, “information not held by us”, “not in public interest”, or silence on specific questions.

1. Partial reply — answers Q1 and Q5, ignores Q2, Q3, Q4.
2. “Not held by us” — without any §6(3) transfer.
3. Vague denial — “not in public interest” without citation of §8 sub-clause.

Always frame FAA in numbered bullets:

1. Ground 1: PIO failed to answer Q2, Q3, Q4 — direct violation of §7(1).
2. Ground 2: “Not held” claim made without §6(3) transfer — violation of procedure.
3. Ground 3: Refusal under §8 without citing specific sub-clause — violates Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Del HC 2007).
4. Ground 4: DoPT circulars on speaking orders breached.
5. Ground 5: Cost of vexation — seek compensation under §19(8)(b).

When re-filing, pre-empt evasions by citing:

1. Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) — reasoned order mandatory.
2. CIC Full Bench on “not held” — PIO must identify who holds it.
3. §4(1)(d) — reasons for administrative decision.

FAA → CIC → High Court (writ) → personal costs against PIO. Each rung increases the PIO's personal risk, not institutional.

1. Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Del HC 2007).
2. RTI Act 2005 §§7, 19.
3. DoPT Master Circular on RTI 2024 update.

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.