Section 7(9) — Alternative Form for Voluminous RTIs

Section 7(9) — “An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”

Not an exemption. Section 7(9) does not bar disclosure; it modifies the form of disclosure.

Linked provisions.

• Section 7(1) — 30-day reply deadline.
• Section 8/9 — substantive exemptions that may co-apply.
• Section 10 — severability.
• Section 4(1)(b) — proactive disclosure may pre-empt voluminous requests.

• Disproportion, not inconvenience. Ordinary office-effort is not disproportionate.
• Alternative form must be meaningful. “Inspect at our office” without a date is not a real alternative.
• Applicant's concurrence needed. If the applicant insists on the original form, the PIO must either provide it or justify denial through Section 7(9) + appellate route.
• Safety / preservation. Fragile records (old paper, microfilm) may justify photocopy-only access.
• Volume itself is not enough. A 500-page file is not voluminous in law; a 50,000-page multi-year dataset might be.

1. Step 1. Estimate effort in person-hours to produce the information in the form requested.
2. Step 2. Compare against the authority's routine workload; check DoPT / state guidance on “disproportionate”.
3. Step 3. If disproportionate, draft an alternative proposal — e.g., a sample year, a consolidated summary, a digital file, inspection during office hours.
4. Step 4. Communicate the proposal to the applicant within 30 days; request concurrence.
5. Step 5. On concurrence, supply in the alternative form within 30 days from concurrence.
6. Step 6. On non-concurrence, decide whether to proceed with original form (cost-recovery via fee) or refer the matter for FAA guidance.

With reference to your RTI application dated DD-MM-YYYY, the following questions would require the generation / consolidation of records spanning approximately [describe scope — files / years / departments]. On review, this Office estimates that providing the information in the form requested would require approximately __ person-hours and disproportionately divert the resources of this Office from its other statutory functions.

Under Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, this Office proposes the following alternative form:

(a) A consolidated statement covering the [period], showing aggregate [metric]; and
(b) Inspection of the original records at this Office on [Date, Time], where you may take notes; certified copies will be supplied on demand at Rs. 2 per page.

Your concurrence to this alternative is sought within 15 days. On concurrence, the alternative-form information will be supplied within 30 days. Your rights under Section 19 are preserved throughout.

Should you prefer the original form, this Office will estimate the cost and communicate a fresh fee note under Section 7(3).

First-appeal rights under Section 19(1) are available at any stage.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO block]

• Refusing outright — Section 7(9) is not a refusal clause.
• No alternative proposed — the section requires an alternative.
• Undated inspection offer — a vague “visit our office” is not reasonable.
• Ignoring Section 4 proactive-disclosure — if the data should already be online, request is not disproportionate.
• Over-estimating effort to justify denial — CIC scrutinises estimates.

• Publish proactively what gets asked often — removes Section 7(9) pressure entirely.
• Computerise routinely-requested registers — RTI Act expects digital delivery when feasible.
• Document the estimate — person-hours, source systems, staff deployed — in the file note.
• Propose phased delivery — Year 1 data first, subsequent years on rolling basis.

• Central Information Commission, Full Bench orders (various, 2012–2018) — Section 7(9) cannot be used as a proxy for refusal; alternative-form obligation is mandatory.
• Dr. Mohd. Naseeruddin v. CIC — disproportionate diversion must be quantified, not asserted.

Q1. Can a 100-page file be called voluminous?
Rarely. CIC orders have held that normal retrieval is not disproportionate.

Q2. What if the applicant refuses the alternative?
The PIO must provide the original form on cost-recovery under Section 7(3), or refer the matter to the FAA.

Q3. Can we charge more than Rs. 2/page for heavy photocopying?
No. The RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012 cap copying at Rs. 2/page for A3/A4.

Q4. Does Section 7(9) apply where the information is in multiple formats?
Partially. The form can be standardised (e.g., PDF export of XLS), but the substance of the information cannot be reduced.

Section 7(9) is a form-modifier, not a refuser. Used correctly, it resolves genuinely voluminous requests while preserving the citizen's right. Used as a refusal gate, it collapses at First Appeal.

• PIO RTI reply guide
• Deemed refusal under Section 7(2)
• Section 10 severability
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• RTI Act, 2005, Sections 7, 10
• RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012
• CIC Full Bench orders on Section 7(9) discipline

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.