• 6(1) — Request in writing or through electronic means, in English or Hindi or the official language of the area, to the Central or State Public Information Officer.
• 6(2) — The applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those necessary for contacting them.
• 6(3) — Where an application is made to a public authority requesting information which is held by another, or more closely connected with the functions of another, the public authority shall transfer the application, or such part of it as may be appropriate, to that other public authority within five working days and inform the applicant immediately.

Section 6 is the most-used clause of the Act. Every one of the ~35 lakh RTI applications filed to the Central Government since 2005 passed through Section 6. Its three sub-sections resolve three structural issues:

1. Formal barriers — no prescribed form required. A handwritten letter works.
2. Motive disclosure — no reason required. Section 6(2) is the only clause in Indian transparency law that inverts the standard evidentiary burden; the applicant's reason is irrelevant.
3. Jurisdictional maze — Section 6(3) prevents applications being rejected for being sent to the wrong door.

Section 6 has never been amended since enactment. Every attempted dilution (including the 2015 Lokpal Rules consultation) was withdrawn after public comment.

Supreme Court:

• Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 — Constitution Bench held that even the office of the Chief Justice of India is a “public authority” to which Section 6 applies.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — Section 6 is bounded by the exemption framework in Section 8; the applicant's right to request remains intact even where disclosure is refused on exempt grounds.
• Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, (2010) 2 SCC 1 — Section 6 does not require the PIO to create information by research or analysis; only to provide what is held on record.

Delhi High Court:

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC, Delhi HC (2007) — a non-speaking refusal under Section 8 cannot be sustained against a Section 6 request; Section 6 creates a presumption of disclosure.
• Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, Delhi HC (2010) — Section 6(2) bars the PIO from probing the applicant's motive, including where the request appears politically motivated.

Central Information Commission:

• Satyapal v. TCIL, CIC Decision CIC/AT/A/2006/00113 — file notings are “information” under Section 2(f) and therefore within Section 6's scope.
• Shail Sahni v. CPIO, CIC (2013) — the mode of disclosure (inspection, copy, electronic) follows Section 2(j), and Section 6 does not permit the PIO to unilaterally restrict the mode.

• ~14.38 lakh Section 6 applications to Central Government ministries in 2023-24 (DoPT Annual Report).
• ~42 percent related to service matters (pay, pension, transfer).
• ~18 percent related to beneficiary verification (subsidies, schemes).
• ~12 percent related to police, revenue, land.
• ~60 percent replied to within the 30-day statutory window under Section 7.

Use the phrase “Under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request the following information:” as the opening paragraph. This anchors the application in the Act and prevents confusion with any departmental grievance form.

Deliberately omit “for the purpose of…” phrasing. If a PIO asks on the telephone or in writing, cite Section 6(2) and refuse to explain.

Always close with: “If any portion of this request lies with a public authority other than yours, kindly transfer the same under Section 6(3) within five working days and intimate me of the transfer.” This makes dismissal on jurisdictional grounds impossible.

When drafting writ petitions under Article 226 where the underlying record was refused, always attach the original Section 6 application along with the PIO's refusal. The absence of a proper Section 6 record is often the first infirmity the High Court notes.

No. Section 3 limits the right to “citizens”. A non-citizen may, however, have an Indian citizen (advocate, relative) file on their behalf as the applicant of record.

Yes — Rs 10 under Rule 3 of the RTI Fees Rules, 2005 (waived for BPL under Section 7(5)). The fee is procedural; the right under Section 6 stands whether or not the fee is paid, but the application may be returned for payment.

Yes, through a natural guardian.

Section 6(1) contemplates written or electronic. Oral requests are not maintainable; the PIO has a duty under Section 6(1) proviso to reduce oral requests to writing for persons who cannot themselves do so.

Administrative-side records of courts, yes (subject to rules made by the Chief Justice as “competent authority” under Section 28). Judicial-side records of pending or recently-decided matters are governed by separate court rules.

If you are filing your first RTI, use our First RTI Template which is pre-structured around Section 6(1), 6(2), and 6(3). For the step-by-step drafting guide, see How to fill an RTI application. For online filing to Central Government, use rtionline.gov.in 12-step guide.

• Back to the full RTI Act, 2005
• Section 7 — Disposal of request (30 days)
• Section 8 — Exemptions
• Section 19 — Appeals
• Section 2 — Definitions
• First RTI template
• First Appeal template
• Why RTI applications get rejected
• Citizen under RTI — Section 3
• Transfer of application — Section 6(3)
• Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5)
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay

1. Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Section 6.
2. RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.
3. CPIO SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
4. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
5. Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, (2010) 2 SCC 1.
6. Bhagat Singh v. CIC, Delhi HC (2007).
7. Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, Delhi HC (2010).
8. DoPT Annual Report 2023-24.

Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026