RTI First Appeal & Second Appeal — Complete 2026 Guide

If your RTI to a Public Information Officer was ignored, refused, or partially answered, the Right to Information Act, 2005 gives you two layers of statutory remedy: First Appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days of the PIO order (or 30-day reply window expiry), and Second Appeal under Section 19(3) within 90 days of the FAA decision. Burden of proof falls on the PIO under §19(5). Penalty up to ₹25,000 (₹250/day) under §20(1) is personally payable from the PIO's salary; compensation under §19(8)(b) is separately awardable to the applicant. This guide gives you the exact procedure, ten valid grounds of appeal, three sample letters (First Appeal + Second Appeal + Condonation), latest CIC precedents (2024-25), state-wise fee table, and one-click hand-off to our AI Appeal Drafter — built from the DoPT RTI Annual Report 2022-23, CIC Annual Report 2023-24, and the leading Supreme Court rulings on §19 (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011, RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry 2016, Namit Sharma v. UoI 2013).

Reviewed on: 23 April 2026. Maintained by RTI Wiki editorial team — advocates, retired Information Commissioners, and former PIOs.

The First Appeal under Section 19(1) can be filed in any of the following situations:

1. No reply received within 30 days of filing the RTI (deemed refusal under §7(2)).
2. No reply within 48 hours for life-or-liberty matters under §7(1) proviso.
3. PIO has denied the information, fully or partly, citing §8/§9/§11 exemptions.
4. PIO has given an evasive or incomplete reply — point-wise responses missing.
5. PIO has demanded an excessive or illegal fee under §7(3).
6. PIO has not transferred the application to the correct authority under §6(3).
7. PIO has not given reasons for any rejection under §7(8).
8. Third-party consultation under §11 was procedurally mishandled.
9. Section 8(2) public-interest override was not considered when applicable.
10. Severability under §10 was ignored — denied as a whole when only part is exempt.

Time limit: 30 days from the date of receipt of PIO order, or from the date the 30-day statutory window expired (whichever is later). Use our Working-Days Calculator to compute the exact deadline applying Indian holidays.

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) is the officer senior in rank to the PIO within the same public authority. They are usually the Joint Secretary, Director, or Head of Department. The PIO's reply (or the public authority's website) must disclose the FAA's name. If not disclosed, file an RTI specifically asking for the FAA's name and contact — that is grounds for §20(2) action against the PIO.

1. Online (for Central RTIs): Login at rtionline.gov.in → “Submit First Appeal” → enter the original RTI registration number → upload your appeal letter as PDF. No fee.
2. By post: Address your appeal to the FAA at the public authority's official address. Send by Registered Post or Speed Post — keep the receipt.
3. In person: Hand-deliver and obtain a dated receipt with inward number.

1. Copy of the original RTI application (with proof of filing — IPO receipt or online ARN).
2. Copy of the PIO's reply (or proof of non-receipt — your tracking screenshot or postman remark).
3. Your appeal letter (template below).
4. Affidavit of condonation if you are filing beyond the 30-day window (template at §6).

Pick the ones that apply. The more specific the ground, the more likely the FAA grants it.

To:
The First Appellate Authority,
[Designation, e.g., Joint Secretary (CPV)],
[Public authority name and address]

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 — against
[deemed refusal / order dated DD/MM/YYYY] of the PIO on RTI ARN [NUMBER]

Respected Sir/Madam,

This first appeal is filed against the [reply / non-reply] of the PIO,
[NAME], in respect of my RTI application dated [DD/MM/YYYY] (ARN: [NUMBER]),
addressed to [public authority name].

GROUND(S) OF APPEAL
[Pick from the 10 grounds above. Cite each with statutory provision +
case law reference. Example:]

1. The PIO has not replied within the 30-day statutory window prescribed
   by Section 7(1). Under Section 7(2), this is deemed refusal of the
   request and is a substantive ground of appeal under Section 19(1).
   Reference: Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC, 2007) — deemed refusal
   triggers full appellate jurisdiction.

2. [Add second / third ground if applicable.]

PRAYER
In view of the above, I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Authority be
pleased to:

a) Direct the PIO to furnish the complete information sought in my
   application dated [DD/MM/YYYY], free of cost (since the 30-day
   window has expired — Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI, CIC).

b) Initiate proceedings against the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act
   for failure to comply within the statutory window — penalty of
   Rs. 250 per day (maximum Rs. 25,000) being personally payable.

c) Award compensation under Section 19(8)(b) for loss / detriment
   caused to me by the PIO's non-compliance.

d) Pass any further orders as may be just and necessary in the
   circumstances of the case.

ENCLOSURES
1. Copy of RTI application dated [DD/MM/YYYY] (with online ARN /
   IPO receipt).
2. Copy of PIO's reply / proof of non-receipt.
3. [Any other documents.]

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Mobile, email]
Date: [Today's date]
Place: [City]

🪄 Generate this letter pre-filled for your case →

If the FAA does not decide your First Appeal within 30 days (extendable to 45 with reasons under §19(6)), or decides against you, you have 90 days to file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) to the Central Information Commission (for Central public authorities) or the State Information Commission (for state public authorities).

• Central Information Commission — Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. Online portal: cic.gov.in → “Online Appeal/Complaint Filing”.
• State Information Commissions — addresses on each SIC's website. Most states accept online filing now.

90 days from the date of FAA order, or from the date the FAA was due to decide (45 days from First Appeal filing) — whichever is later. Condonation of delay possible on “sufficient cause” under §19(3) proviso (sample affidavit at §6).

Under §19(8), CIC has wide powers:

• Order disclosure of the information.
• Direct the public authority to make systemic improvements (training, RTI manual update, website upload of records under §4).
• Award compensation under §19(8)(b).
• Initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO under §20(1) — ₹250/day, maximum ₹25,000.
• Recommend disciplinary action under §20(2) — service-rule consequences for the officer.

To:
The Registrar,
Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi 110066.

Subject: Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005

DETAILS OF THE APPELLANT
Name:        [Full name]
Address:     [Permanent address with PIN]
Mobile:      [Number]
Email:       [Email]

DETAILS OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Name:        [E.g., Ministry of External Affairs]
Address:     [Postal address]
PIO:         [Name + designation, if known]
FAA:         [Name + designation]

DETAILS OF THE RTI APPLICATION
Date filed:           [DD/MM/YYYY]
ARN / Reference No:   [NUMBER]
Date of PIO reply:    [DD/MM/YYYY] (or "no reply received — deemed refusal under §7(2)")
Date of First Appeal: [DD/MM/YYYY]
FAA order:            [Date + outcome — "no order received" if FAA also failed to decide]

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. [Primary ground — typically deemed-refusal at FAA stage,
    or FAA upheld PIO's wrongful denial.]

2. [Statutory provision violated — §8/§9/§11/§7(8) etc.]

3. [Public interest in disclosure — §8(2) override applies.]

4. [Case law support — list 2-3 CIC orders / SC rulings.]

PRAYER

a) Quash and set aside the order of the PIO dated [DD/MM/YYYY] and
   the order of the FAA dated [DD/MM/YYYY].

b) Direct the public authority to furnish the information sought in
   my RTI application dated [DD/MM/YYYY], free of cost.

c) Initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO under §20(1) — penalty
   of Rs. 250 per day up to Rs. 25,000 from PIO's salary.

d) Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under §20(2).

e) Award compensation of Rs. [AMOUNT] under §19(8)(b) for loss and
   detriment caused by the delay.

f) Pass any further orders just and necessary.

ENCLOSURES
1. Copy of original RTI application.
2. Copy of PIO reply / proof of non-receipt.
3. Copy of First Appeal.
4. Copy of FAA order (or proof of non-decision).
5. Affidavit of condonation (if filing beyond 90 days).
6. List of dates and events.

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Mobile, email]
Date: [Today's date]
Place: [City]

Filing your Second Appeal beyond the 90-day window? You may still be heard if you file an affidavit of condonation under the proviso to §19(3) showing “sufficient cause”.

AFFIDAVIT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY
(Under proviso to Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005)

I, [Name], son/daughter of [Father's name], aged [age], resident of
[address], do solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the appellant in the above-mentioned Second Appeal.

2. The order of the FAA was passed on [date] / was due on [date].
   The 90-day window for filing this Second Appeal therefore expired on
   [date]. The present appeal is being filed on [today's date], with a
   delay of [N] days.

3. The said delay was caused by the following bona fide reasons,
   beyond my control:
   [State the reason — medical, family bereavement, transfer of records,
    delay in receiving FAA order by post, etc. Attach proof: medical
    certificate, death certificate, postal receipt etc.]

4. I have not been negligent or wilful in causing this delay.

5. The questions raised in the appeal are of significant public
   importance, and the public interest justifies condonation under the
   proviso to Section 19(3).

I therefore pray that this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to condone the
delay of [N] days and admit the present appeal for hearing on merits.

Verified at [city] on this [date].

Deponent
[Name]

[Notarial endorsement on Rs. 100 stamp paper, signed by Notary Public.]

Be candid with yourself — the CIC has a serious backlog problem:

• CIC pending second appeals (Q4 FY 2024-25): 26,000+ cases nationally.
• Across all SICs: ~1 lakh pending second appeals.
• Hearing wait: 12-18 months typically; longer for sensitive ministries.
• Commissioner strength: through most of 2025 only 2 of 11 sanctioned posts were filled. Full strength was restored in December 2025, but backlog will take 24+ months to clear at current disposal rates.
• Anjali Bharadwaj v. UoI — pending Supreme Court monitoring orders on commissioner appointments and disposal targets.

What this means for you: If your information has time-sensitivity (medical, court deadline, election), do not rely solely on the Second Appeal. Use parallel routes:

1. Writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court — bypasses CIC entirely; faster for urgent matters.
2. CPGRAMS grievance at pgportal.gov.in — administrative pressure on the public authority.
3. MP/MLA reference letter — under-rated; often clears the file in 48 hours.
4. Journalistic exposure — for matters of public interest where evidence already exists.

Supreme Court:

• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 — every refusal must identify the specific exemption clause + reasons. Generic invocation rejected.
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 5 SCC 136 — narrowed §8(1)(e) “fiduciary” exemption; regulator-regulated is not fiduciary.
• Namit Sharma v. UoI (2013) 1 SCC 745 — IC adjudicatory standards; appeals must be heard on merits with reasons.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — three-part test for §8(1)(j); test survives DPDP Act 2023 amendment per pending Supreme Court reference.

Delhi High Court:

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — deemed refusal under §7(2) triggers full appellate jurisdiction.
• Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. SC of India (CIC 2009) — §6(3) transfer obligation is mandatory; failure is appealable.

Recent CIC orders (2024-25):

• CIC order dated 14.11.2024 — show-cause to PIOs for non-appearance; signal of active enforcement.
• CIC order dated 17.01.2025 — initiated §20(1) and §20(2) action against multiple central PIOs for repeated default.
• Anjali Bharadwaj v. UoI — Supreme Court continuing to monitor IC vacancies.

Under the Central RTI Rules 2012 (and identical rules of most states), First Appeal and Second Appeal are free. A few states still demand a fee:

BPL applicants pay no fee in any state under §7(5). Use our Fee Calculator for the latest state-by-state rates.

30 days from date of PIO order, OR from expiry of 30-day reply window (deemed refusal). For life-or-liberty matters where 48-hour rule applied, 30 days run from 48-hour expiry.

30 days from date of First Appeal receipt, extendable to 45 days with recorded reasons under §19(6). If FAA does not decide in 45 days, the Second Appeal window opens automatically.

90 days from date of FAA order, OR from date FAA was due to decide (45 days from First Appeal filing) — whichever is later. Condonation of delay possible under §19(3) proviso.

Free for Central RTIs and most states. Some states (UP, MP, Punjab, Haryana, TN, Gujarat) charge ₹50. BPL applicants pay nothing anywhere under §7(5).

Yes — for Central RTIs at rtionline.gov.in. For Central Second Appeals at cic.gov.in. Most state SICs also have online portals. Postal filing is always permitted as fallback.

Cite the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande three-part test (SC 2013): (a) is the information personal in nature; (b) does it have nexus to public activity; © does the larger public interest warrant disclosure. Most §8(1)(j) refusals fail one or more of these prongs. Use our §8 Exemption Analyzer for instant counter-language.

Yes. Under §20(1), the Information Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day of delay, maximum ₹25,000, payable from the PIO's salary. Under §20(2), it can recommend disciplinary action under the PIO's service rules. Always pray for both in your appeal.

Yes, under §19(8)(b). Quantify the loss — lost wages from missed travel, fees paid for parallel litigation, medical costs from delayed access to records, etc. CIC commonly awards ₹500-5,000 in clear cases; up to ₹50,000 in egregious matters.

Yes — the DPDP Act effective 14 Nov 2025 amended §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The “larger public interest” proviso is deleted, narrowing the exemption. The Supreme Court reference in Jairam Ramesh v. UoI is pending; in the interim, argue (a) §8(2) public interest override survives; (b) Girish Deshpande three-part test still applies; © information about your own affairs is not “personal information” of others.

This is a §19 violation. The FAA must be senior in rank to the PIO. If there is no such senior officer in the same authority, the appeal lies to the Head of Department. Note this objection in writing and proceed.

• First Appeal Builder — 5 grounds, fillable letter
• RTI Deadline Calculator
• §8 Exemption Analyzer
• RTI Fee Calculator — every state
• Section 19 — full text + amendments
• Section 20 — penalty + disciplinary
• FAA Appellate Review Checklist
• PIO Reply Guide
• Digital vs Physical RTI — success-rate data

• Right to Information Act, 2005 (full text) — rti.gov.in
• Central RTI Rules, 2012 — rti.gov.in
• Central Information Commission — cic.gov.in
• DoPT RTI Annual Report 2022-23 — dopt.gov.in
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (SC monitoring orders 2024-25)

Last reviewed: 23 April 2026 by the RTI Wiki editorial team.
FAQ + HowTo structured data injected via page-jsonld/rti-first-appeal-second-appeal-guide.json.