The Right to Information Act, 2005 lets any Indian citizen ask a public authority for records, documents, or reasons behind a decision — to be replied to in writing within 30 days. The officer who processes the request is called a Public Information Officer (PIO). Most RTI replies in India are clean, factual, and helpful. A few — a very small fraction of the tens of lakhs filed each year — end up surprising readers, either because the question was phrased oddly, because a statutory exemption produced a literal reply, or because the reply itself contained unexpected numbers.

This article picks ten of those widely-reported replies, with sources.

• Bureaucratic literalism. Public information officers are trained to reply strictly from the record. If a question is phrased as an opinion, the reply is “we don't maintain such a record”.
• Ambiguous questions. “Why has this not been done?” is an opinion; “What is the file status and who is the officer?” is a record.
• Legal limitations. The RTI Act's Section 8 lists nine kinds of exempt information; some surprising refusals are simply correct applications of these exemptions.
• Human element. PIOs are human. Sometimes a reply is unusually worded; sometimes the file itself contains a surprise.

Seen this way, “absurd” RTI replies are usually a lesson in how the system works — not a failure of it.

What was asked. Over the years, multiple RTI applicants — including Netaji's grand-nephew Chandra Kumar Bose and researcher Anuj Dhar — have sought declassification of the 41 files on Netaji held by the PMO, the Justice Mukherjee Commission files, and correspondence about Netaji's widow and daughter.

What the reply said. In February 2015, the Prime Minister's Office stated in an RTI reply that it had “no power to declassify” secret files relating to Netaji, and that disclosure “would prejudicially affect relations with foreign countries”, invoking Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

Why it stands out. The Prime Minister, the highest executive authority, replying that the office does not have power to declassify files on a freedom fighter surprised many. (The government subsequently declassified many of these files in 2016, starting with the West Bengal set, and then by the Centre.)

What the law actually says. Section 8(1)(a) permits withholding information that would prejudicially affect India's foreign relations. But Section 8(2) carves a public-interest override — the PIO may disclose if public interest outweighs harm. Also, Section 8(3) mandates disclosure of records older than 20 years unless the (a), ©, or (i) exemptions specifically apply.

Lesson for citizens. When a Section 8(1)(a) denial seems over-broad, invoke Section 8(2) and Section 8(3) in your First Appeal.

Source. PM has no power to declassify Netaji files: PMO — The Tribune, 17 February 2015: tribuneindia.com/news/archive/nation/pm-has-no-power-to-declassify-netaji-files-pmo-43435.

What was asked. In 2012, a Class 6 student in Lucknow named Aishwarya Parashar filed an RTI asking the President and PMO to officially notify Mahatma Gandhi as “Father of the Nation”. Over the years, further RTIs sought a certified record of such a notification.

What the reply said. The Ministry of Home Affairs, replying to a subsequent RTI, stated that no such official notification could be traced — Mahatma Gandhi has never been formally notified as “Father of the Nation” by the Government of India.

Why it stands out. A widely-shared title, used in every textbook, turned out to be convention rather than a gazette notification.

What the law actually says. Section 2(f) defines “information” broadly, but if no record exists, the PIO cannot create one — R.K. Jain v. UoI (2013). The PIO must, however, truthfully certify non-availability.

Lesson for citizens. Ask for records that are likely to exist. If the record does not exist, the reply itself becomes informative — a new fact emerges.

Source. Mahatma Gandhi was never declared “Father of Nation”, reveals RTI reply — The Times of India, January 2020: timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mahatma-gandhi-was-never-declared-father-of-nation-reveals-rti-reply/articleshow/73446044.cms.

What was asked. Multiple RTI applicants have sought answers from the Archaeological Survey of India on the historical status of the Taj Mahal — whether it is a Mughal mausoleum or a Hindu temple (“Tejo Mahalaya”) — and, more recently, on the contents of the 22 locked basement rooms of the monument.

What the reply said. The ASI, in a 2017 reply to BK Ayyangar, stated “no such record is available” regarding the “Tejo Mahalaya” claim. In 2022, in a single-line reply to another RTI, the ASI clarified that no idols of Hindu deities exist in the locked basement rooms of the Taj Mahal.

Why it stands out. A one-line RTI reply became the most cited piece of evidence against a 30-year-old theory.

What the law actually says. Section 2(f) — “information” includes any record held by the public authority. A negative assertion, properly worded, is valid information.

Lesson for citizens. A clean “No” from the correct authority can be more powerful than a long essay. Ask yes/no questions when you want to settle a factual dispute.

Source. Taj Mahal a Shiva Temple? Yes, an RTI Plea Asks ASI Exactly That — The Quint: thequint.com/news/india/taj-mahal-shiva-temple-rti-asi-that. See also MSN on the 2022 reply on Hindu idols.

What was asked. An applicant asked how many sick and casual leaves the Prime Ministers of India have availed in the last 10 years, and whether the sitting PM follows official working hours.

What the reply said. The PMO replied that PM Narendra Modi had not taken a single day off after taking charge on 26 May 2014, and that “he is on duty all the time”.

Why it stands out. The reply was widely shared as a quotable line; it also illustrates that attendance registers for the PM's office are a public record.

What the law actually says. A PIO must answer from the record. Where the record is a roster / attendance register, the reply must reflect it.

Lesson for citizens. “How many” and “how often” are sharp questions. “Why” and “should” are not.

Source. 15 bizarre RTI queries on PM Modi and their interesting replies — India TV: indiatvnews.com/politics/national/15-bizarre-rti-queries-interesting-replies-on-pm-narendra-modi-34967.html.

What was asked. An RTI applicant, and later BJP MLA Charan Waghmare, sought the records of the pest-control contract at Mantralaya, Maharashtra's state secretariat in Mumbai.

What the reply said. The RTI disclosure showed that a contractor had been paid for killing 3,19,400 rats in seven days — a rate of around 45,000 rats per day, or 32 rats every minute.

Why it stands out. Former minister Eknath Khadse raised the figure publicly, asking how such a large number could have been killed in a week. The BJP later clarified that the figure referred to poison tablets used, not rats killed, but the RTI papers had originally quoted rats. The episode became known as the “Mantralaya rat scam”.

What the law actually says. Section 4(1)(b)(xi) — budget heads and contracts of a public authority are proactive-disclosure items. Section 4(1)(b)(xii) — subsidy details of beneficiaries.

Lesson for citizens. Pest-control contracts, sanitation contracts, consumable purchases — all are RTI-able. Focus on the BoQ and the running bills.

Source. Over 3 lakh rats were killed in an Indian government office — Quartz India, March 2018: qz.com/india/1236067. See also Business Standard: business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/rats-in-mantralaya-bjp-says-khadse-got-the-number-wrong-118032301181_1.html.

What was asked. An RTI applicant asked the PMO for the graduation percentage of the Prime Minister.

What the reply said. The PMO replied that “the information sought does not form part of the records”.

Why it stands out. The reply brought out an interesting point — personal academic records of a public figure are not held by the PMO as an office; they sit with the university. A separate RTI to Delhi University led to a Central Information Commission order; the DU CPIO was fined Rs. 25,000 for rejecting an RTI on the PM's degree without adequate reason.

What the law actually says. Section 6(3) — if the PIO does not hold the information, she must transfer the RTI to the correct authority within five days. Section 8(1)(j) — personal academic data of a third party is ordinarily exempt, unless there is an overriding public interest.

Lesson for citizens. Route your RTI to the custodian of the record. If the PMO doesn't hold the record, the PMO cannot produce it.

Source. DU official fined Rs25K for rejecting RTI query on Modi's degree — Moneylife: moneylife.in/article/du-official-fined-rs25k-for-rejecting-rti-query-on-modis-degree/49410.html. See also India TV (link above).

What was asked. Activists who organised an online petition with nearly 13,000 signatures for Dr Verghese Kurien — the “Father of the White Revolution” — to be awarded the Bharat Ratna, filed an RTI asking how many recommendation letters the PMO had received in his support.

What the reply said. The PMO replied that it had received only 23 petitions for Dr Kurien. (For comparison, Sachin Tendulkar was shown to have received 20.)

Why it stands out. An online petition with 13,000 signatures had translated to just 23 petitions on the PMO record. The gap highlighted how civic campaigns must be converted into formal written submissions to be counted.

What the law actually says. Section 2(f) — records held by the public authority are disclosable. Whatever has reached the PMO's dak is the record; online signatures are not.

Lesson for citizens. A signed online petition is moral persuasion. A formal posted petition is a record. Convert advocacy into paperwork.

Source. About 13,000 signed online petition for Dr V Kurien's Bharat Ratna, PMO says received just 23! — Moneylife: moneylife.in/article/about-13000-signed-online-petition-for-dr-v-kuriens-bharat-ratna-pmo-says-received-just-23/31525.html.

What was asked. An RTI applicant asked the Union government for the expenditure on official commemorations of Mahatma Gandhi's death and birth anniversaries, and for a comparable figure for Kasturba Gandhi.

What the reply said. The RTI disclosed that nearly Rs 83 lakh had been spent on Kasturba Gandhi's death-anniversary commemorations over two years — about 60% more than the combined expenditure on Mahatma Gandhi's death and birth anniversaries during the same period.

Why it stands out. Commemoration budgets are usually small line items that nobody asks about. This RTI surfaced a disproportionate allocation that no Parliament question had previously exposed.

What the law actually says. Section 4(1)(b)(xi) again — budget heads and expenditure details are proactive-disclosure information.

Lesson for citizens. The interesting data often lives in small, routine budget lines. Large line items are already audited; small ones less so.

Source. Government spent 60% more on remembering Kasturba than Mahatma Gandhi — Moneylife: moneylife.in/article/government-spent-60-percentage-more-on-remembering-kasturba-than-mahatma-gandhi/29827.html.

What was asked. An RTI applicant asked what was the broadband internet speed available at the PMO and at 7, Race Course Road (now Lok Kalyan Marg).

What the reply said. The PMO replied that the internet speed available was 34 Mbps.

Why it stands out. A single-number, factual reply — and an unexpectedly modest figure for the country's highest executive office. The reply became a short-form reminder that technical infrastructure records are disclosable.

What the law actually says. Section 2(f) — technical specifications of infrastructure procured by a public authority are “information”. Section 8(1)(a) exemptions on security don't automatically cover mundane IT specs.

Lesson for citizens. Technical facts (equipment, broadband, vehicles, staff sanction) are disclosable. They build the factual scaffolding for any civic story.

Source. 15 bizarre RTI queries on PM Modi and their interesting replies — India TV (link above).

What was asked. An RTI applicant asked the Archaeological Survey of India whether the Ram Setu (Adam's Bridge, between Rameswaram and Mannar) is natural or man-made, and whether the ASI has any proposal to declare it a monument of national importance.

What the reply said. The ASI stated that Ram Setu is not currently protected as a monument of national importance and that no proposal is pending at its headquarters. It declined to take a position on whether the structure is natural or man-made, saying its records do not contain a definitive view.

Why it stands out. A decades-long national debate — natural shoals or a man-made bridge? — was met with a straight-faced “we don't have a recorded view”.

What the law actually says. A public authority cannot express an opinion under RTI; it can only disclose records. If the records don't contain a finding, the reply will say so.

Lesson for citizens. Ask for what the record shows, not for what the officer personally believes. A “no record” reply is also evidence — it can drive the next RTI to a technical committee, an expert panel, or Parliament.

Source. Ram Setu 'national heritage' in manifestos, 'nil' in ASI records, RTI finds — India Today, March 2026: indiatoday.in/india/story/ram-setu-national-heritage-in-manifestos-nil-in-asi-records-rti-finds-exclusive-2885893-2026-03-23.

• Literal replies are not wrong. The PIO's job is to quote the record, not to narrate history. An unexpected reply is often a correctly worded one to an imprecise question.
• Negative findings are information. “No record available” is itself a fact, often more useful than a long essay.
• Records travel in small line items. Pest-control bills, commemoration budgets, broadband plans — small items produce big stories.
• Custodian matters. A PMO reply on a university degree will fail; the university is the custodian. Route correctly.
• Statutory exemptions are real. Section 8(1)(a), (d), (h), (i), (j) produce genuine refusals. They are not arbitrary.

A well-phrased RTI has three features:

1. A specific record sought (a register, a contract, a file number).
2. A defined period (dates, not “since forever”).
3. A named office (PIO of the correct public authority).

When all three are present, even “surprising” replies are useful.

• Ask for records, not explanations. “Give me the attendance register” beats “Does the PM follow working hours?”
• Avoid opinion-style questions. “Why has this not happened?” gets nowhere. “What is the file status and which officer holds it?” does.
• Route to the custodian. Find out which office holds the record before you write.
• Quote a period and a reference. A year, a file number, an account number — the PIO thanks you.
• Check Section 8 first. If your request falls in exempt territory (privacy, security, commercial confidence), either reframe it or be prepared for a refusal.
• Read the reply carefully. Many “odd” replies contain a new pointer — use it for the next RTI.

RTI is one of India's strongest citizen-empowerment laws. The small fraction of “absurd” replies should not obscure the larger truth:

• RTI has exposed scams, reformed policies, and restored benefits to lakhs of citizens.
• Most RTIs in India get clean, helpful replies.
• The more specific the citizen's question, the sharper the PIO's answer.
• The tool rewards patience and precision. It punishes sweeping, rhetorical asks.

For a deeper discussion, see our guide on responsible use of RTI.

Q1. Are these cases fake or exaggerated?
Each case in this article is sourced from a mainstream media report, with a link in the Source box. Readers are encouraged to read the original article for full context. We avoid WhatsApp-forwarded stories that cannot be independently verified.

Q2. Can I file an RTI on anything I want?
You can file RTI on any matter, but the PIO can refuse if the information falls within Section 8 exemptions or if the request is too broad under Section 7(9). A focused, specific RTI works best.

Q3. Can I be penalised for filing an unusual RTI?
No. RTI is your legal right under a central Act. But frivolous, harassing RTIs are discouraged and can, in extreme cases, attract the Information Commission's attention under Section 20 (though usually the penalty applies to PIOs who withhold information, not applicants).

Q4. Can I ask for an officer's personal leaves?
Aggregate attendance information is disclosable. Individual leave patterns of a named officer may be partly protected under Section 8(1)(j).

Q5. Will a PIO refuse a sensitive question?
A PIO can invoke an exemption under Section 8 or 9 with reasons. You can then file a First Appeal. Often, an appeal narrows the exemption and releases some material.

Q6. What if my RTI reply is clearly wrong?
Deliberately incorrect RTI replies can attract a penalty of up to Rs. 25,000 on the PIO under Section 20. See Deliberately wrong RTI replies attract penalty, disciplinary action: Ex-CIC, Business Standard: business-standard.com/article/news-ians/deliberately-wrong-rti-replies-attract-penalty-disciplinary-action-ex-cic-118060300199_1.html.

RTI is the grammar of a democracy. Most replies are clean and routine. A handful are unexpected, quotable, and — yes — sometimes funny. But read carefully, even those unexpected replies teach you how the system works, what the record actually contains, and how to frame the next application sharper.

Laugh when appropriate. Learn always. And file the next RTI a little better.

• RTI for beginners — everything before your first application
• File RTI online in India — 12-step guide
• Why RTI gets rejected — and how to avoid common mistakes
• Responsible use of RTI — a citizen's ethics
• RTI vs complaint — which to file when
• 10 landmark CIC decisions
• Pillar — RTI Mastery

• The Tribune — PM has no power to declassify Netaji files: PMO (2015): tribuneindia.com/news/archive/nation/pm-has-no-power-to-declassify-netaji-files-pmo-43435
• The Times of India — Mahatma Gandhi was never declared “Father of Nation”, reveals RTI reply (2020): timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mahatma-gandhi-was-never-declared-father-of-nation-reveals-rti-reply/articleshow/73446044.cms
• The Quint — Taj Mahal a Shiva Temple? Yes, an RTI Plea Asks ASI Exactly That: thequint.com/news/india/taj-mahal-shiva-temple-rti-asi-that
• India TV — 15 bizarre RTI queries on PM Modi and their interesting replies: indiatvnews.com/politics/national/15-bizarre-rti-queries-interesting-replies-on-pm-narendra-modi-34967.html
• Quartz India — Killing of over 300,000 rats at Maharashtra's Mantralaya raises a stink (March 2018): qz.com/india/1236067
• Business Standard — Rats in Mantralaya: BJP says Khadse got the number wrong: business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/rats-in-mantralaya-bjp-says-khadse-got-the-number-wrong-118032301181_1.html
• Moneylife — DU official fined Rs25K for rejecting RTI query on Modi's degree: moneylife.in/article/du-official-fined-rs25k-for-rejecting-rti-query-on-modis-degree/49410.html
• Moneylife — About 13,000 signed online petition for Dr V Kurien's Bharat Ratna, PMO says received just 23!: moneylife.in/article/about-13000-signed-online-petition-for-dr-v-kuriens-bharat-ratna-pmo-says-received-just-23/31525.html
• Moneylife — Government spent 60% more on remembering Kasturba than Mahatma Gandhi: moneylife.in/article/government-spent-60-percentage-more-on-remembering-kasturba-than-mahatma-gandhi/29827.html
• India Today — Ram Setu 'national heritage' in manifestos, 'nil' in ASI records, RTI finds (March 2026): indiatoday.in/india/story/ram-setu-national-heritage-in-manifestos-nil-in-asi-records-rti-finds-exclusive-2885893-2026-03-23
• Business Standard — Deliberately wrong RTI replies attract penalty, disciplinary action: Ex-CIC: business-standard.com/article/news-ians/deliberately-wrong-rti-replies-attract-penalty-disciplinary-action-ex-cic-118060300199_1.html

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026. Citations follow widely-reported media sources; readers are encouraged to visit the original articles for full context.