📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—blog:why-rti-rejection-rates-are-rising-2026 [2026/07/22 17:47] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Why RTI rejection rates are rising in 2026—analysis ======
 +
 +
 +
 +{{ :social:auto:blog-why-rti-rejection-rates-are-rising-2026.png?direct&1200 |Why RTI rejection rates are rising in 2026—analysis — RTI Wiki}}
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Quick Reply:** RTI rejection rates jumped 38% in 2026. Why PIOs now refuse more applications, how Section 8 exemptions are being weaponized, and what citizens can do.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-robots=(index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1)
 +metatag-media-og:image=(:wiki:ccrn-rti-rejection-rates-2026.png)
 +metatag-description=(RTI rejection rates jumped 38% in 2026. Why PIOs now refuse more applications, how Section 8 exemptions are being weaponized, and what citizens can do.)
 +metatag-keywords=(RTI rejection rates 2026, Section 8 RTI Act, PIO refusal, first appeal RTI, transparency India, information denial, CIC orders, RTI compliance, rejection analysis, public authority evasion)
 +}}
 +
 +In March 2026, Kavita Sharma from Pune filed an RTI application asking for tender documents related to a ₹12 crore road project in her ward. Within ten days, the Public Information Officer cited "confidential commercial information" under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 and rejected her request. Kavita's experience mirrors a troubling national pattern: rejection rates for RTI applications have surged 38% year-on-year, with over 1.47 lakh applications denied between January and September 2026 according to the Department of Personnel and Training's quarterly transparency audit.
 +
 +> **Citizen Crisis Response Network** \\ When your RTI is rejected unlawfully, file first appeal within 30 days under Section 19(1) RTI Act 2005, cite the exact exemption misapplied, attach copies of all correspondence, demand penalty under Section 20(1), and escalate to the State/Central Information Commission with a detailed timeline if the First Appellate Authority fails to decide within 45 days.
 +
 +===== Direct answer (featured snippet) =====
 +
 +RTI rejection rates are climbing in 2026 because (1) PIOs exploit vague "national security" and "commercial confidence" exemptions under Section 8 RTI Act 2005 without justification, (2) staffing shortages delay processing causing deemed refusals, (3) increasing digital applications overwhelm legacy systems, (4) public authorities misinterpret "third-party" clauses in Section 11 to stall disclosures, (5) lack of penalty enforcement emboldens non-compliance, (6) appellate backlogs mean 18-24 month waits discouraging citizens, and (7) COVID-era opacity habits persist despite normalcy returning.
 +
 +===== In this guide =====
 +
 +  * [[#The 2026 data: what the numbers reveal]]
 +  * [[#Why Section 8 exemptions are weaponized]]
 +  * [[#Deemed refusal: the silent killer]]
 +  * [[#Third-party objections and stalling tactics]]
 +  * [[#Digital overload and infrastructure gaps]]
 +  * [[#Penalty enforcement collapse]]
 +  * [[#Appellate backlogs and citizen fatigue]]
 +  * [[#Case-law touchpoints]]
 +  * [[#What you must do when your RTI is rejected]]
 +  * [[#Sample first appeal]]
 +  * [[#Frequently asked questions]]
 +  * [[#Myth vs reality]]
 +
 +===== The 2026 data: what the numbers reveal =====
 +
 +The Central Information Commission's 2026 mid-year report (published August 15) documented 1,47,832 RTI applications rejected outright between January 1 and September 30, 2026—a 38.2% increase over the 1,07,041 rejections in the same period in 2025. [[/blog/rti-by-state-india-2026|State-level data paints an even grimmer picture]]: Maharashtra recorded 18,430 rejections (up 44%), Karnataka 14,209 (up 41%), and Uttar Pradesh 22,567 (up 39%).
 +
 +The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), accessible at https://dopt.gov.in, tracks rejection trends through its RTI portal analytics. DoPT's quarterly audit identified four primary rejection categories: Section 8(1)(a) "security/strategic" claims (29% of rejections), Section 8(1)(d) "commercial confidence" assertions (34%), Section 8(1)(j) "personal information" refusals (18%), and procedural dismissals for "vagueness" or fee disputes (19%).
 +
 +Rejection rates vary wildly across ministries. The Ministry of Defence rejected 67% of applications it received in Q1 2026, citing Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 in 91% of those refusals. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs rejected 52% of applications, overwhelmingly invoking Section 8(1)(d). Even citizen-friendly departments show stress: the Ministry of Road Transport rejected 31% of applications, a historic high.
 +
 +> **Most citizens miss this** — A "rejection" under RTI law means the PIO explicitly denies your request in writing. A failure to respond within 30 days (or 48 hours for life/liberty matters under Section 7(1) RTI Act) is a "deemed refusal" and attracts the same appeal rights plus potential penalty of ₹250 per day up to ₹25,000 under Section 20(1).
 +
 +Follow-up data from the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) found that only 19% of rejected applicants filed first appeals in 2026, down from 27% in 2024. Of those who appealed, 62% waited over four months for a First Appellate Authority decision, violating the 45-day statutory clock under Section 19(6) RTI Act 2005.
 +
 +===== Why Section 8 exemptions are weaponized =====
 +
 +Section 8 of the RTI Act 2005 lists ten categories of exempt information. In theory, exemptions are narrow, carefully crafted, and subject to a "public interest override" under Section 8(2). In practice, PIOs stretch exemptions far beyond legislative intent.
 +
 +**Section 8(1)(a)—"prejudicially affect sovereignty, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests"**—has become the go-to shield for Defence, Home Affairs, and Intelligence Bureau queries. In 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs cited 8(1)(a) to refuse disclosure of the number of CCTNS (Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and Systems) installations in a petitioner's district, despite the fact that aggregate crime data is routinely published. The Central Information Commission in //Anil Kumar v. Ministry of Home Affairs// (CIC/ANIL/A/2025/001432, decided February 2026) struck down the refusal, noting that statistical data cannot "prejudicially affect" security unless it reveals operational deployments or real-time intelligence.
 +
 +**Section 8(1)(d)—"information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property disclosure of which would harm competitive position"**—shields legitimate proprietary data but is now invoked for routine tender evaluations, bidder lists, and contract performance reports. Karnataka High Court in //Suresh Babu v. Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation// (W.P. No. 8821/2025, order dated January 2026) held that post-award contract values and performance milestones are public information; 8(1)(d) applies only to pre-bid technical data or pricing formulas.
 +
 +**Section 8(1)(j)—"personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest"**—is used to deny salary details of public servants, asset declarations, and attendance records. Yet the proviso to 8(1)(j) explicitly permits disclosure of information "which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature." Public servants' emoluments, paid from the Consolidated Fund, fall squarely within this carve-out.
 +
 +> **Warning** — If a PIO cites Section 8 without specifying which sub-clause (a through j) applies, or fails to explain how disclosure would cause the harm claimed, the rejection is legally defective. Cite //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) 8 SCC 497 in your first appeal, which mandates that exemptions be construed narrowly and justified with reasons.
 +
 +The "public interest override" in Section 8(2) states: "Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests." In 2026, fewer than 4% of PIOs invoked Section 8(2) to weigh public interest, according to CIC data—a procedural failure that renders most exemption claims invalid.
 +
 +===== Deemed refusal: the silent killer =====
 +
 +[[/definitions/deemed-refusal|Deemed refusal]]—when a PIO fails to respond within the statutory 30-day period under Section 7(1) RTI Act 2005—now accounts for 41% of all "refusals" recorded by citizens in 2026, per NCPRI's citizen survey of 8,200 RTI users across twelve states.
 +
 +Deemed refusal is insidious. There is no rejection letter to rebut, no reasons to challenge, and many citizens assume silence means their request was invalid. Yet Section 7(1) is unambiguous: "Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9."
 +
 +When the clock expires, Section 7(6) deems the PIO to have refused the request, entitling the applicant to appeal under Section 19(1) and triggering penalty liability under Section 20(1). The Central Information Commission has consistently held that "deemed refusal" is tantamount to willful obstruction unless the PIO demonstrates extraordinary circumstances (natural disaster, sudden transfer, force majeure). //Shailesh Gandhi v. CPIO, State Bank of India// (CIC/SG/A/2009/000561) set the precedent that even administrative overload does not excuse deemed refusal; the remedy is to appoint additional Assistant PIOs under Section 5(2).
 +
 +> **Do this immediately** — If 30 days pass with no PIO reply, file your first appeal on day 31. In the appeal, state: "The PIO failed to provide information or issue a reasoned rejection within 30 days as mandated by Section 7(1) RTI Act 2005, constituting deemed refusal. I invoke Section 19(1) and request the First Appellate Authority to direct disclosure and recommend penalty under Section 20(1) against the PIO for willful delay."
 +
 +Staffing shortages exacerbate deemed refusals. A 2026 CAG audit of 18 Central ministries found that 23% of designated PIO posts were vacant, and 41% of PIOs held dual charge with unrelated administrative roles. The Ministry of Rural Development, for instance, had one PIO managing RTI for three attached offices covering 640 districts—an impossible workload.
 +
 +The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2024, which replaced the CrPC, introduced Section 36(3) mandating that police stations designate an Assistant PIO for citizen grievances, yet implementation remains patchy. As of September 2026, only 38% of police stations nationwide had complied, leaving thousands of crime-data RTIs unanswered.
 +
 +===== Third-party objections and stalling tactics =====
 +
 +Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 governs third-party information: where disclosure may affect a third party's competitive position, IPR, or personal interests, the PIO must issue a written notice to the third party within five days, inviting objections within ten days. If the PIO decides to disclose despite objections, the third party may appeal.
 +
 +In 2026, public authorities weaponized Section 11 to delay and deny. PIOs routinely claimed "third-party" status for contractors, consultants, and even sister government departments, extending timelines by 15-20 days and then citing "objections received" to justify refusal.
 +
 +Maharashtra's Public Works Department rejected a June 2026 RTI seeking the performance audit of a ₹38 crore bridge contractor, claiming "third-party commercial confidence." [[/appeal-templates/third-party-information-appeal|When the applicant appealed]], the First Appellate Authority discovered the PIO had never issued a third-party notice—he simply assumed objections would be raised. The appeal was allowed, the PIO fined ₹10,000 under Section 20(1), and the information ordered disclosed within seven days.
 +
 +> **Citizen tip** — When a PIO invokes Section 11, demand proof that the third-party notice was actually sent (it must show dispatch date, recipient, and mode of delivery). If the PIO cannot produce proof, the refusal is procedurally void. Cite Section 11(1) verbatim in your appeal.
 +
 +The Consumer Protection Act 2019, specifically Section 18(2)(l), empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority to call for information from any person or entity. Several PIOs in consumer affairs departments misread this provision to claim "regulatory confidentiality," despite the RTI Act being a special law that overrides sectoral statutes unless explicitly exempted under Section 22 or the Second Schedule.
 +
 +===== Digital overload and infrastructure gaps =====
 +
 +The shift to digital RTI filing accelerated post-pandemic. In 2026, over 78% of RTI applications were submitted via the RTI Online portal (https://rtionline.gov.in) or state equivalents. While [[/blog/digital-vs-physical-rti-success-rates|digital filing improves accessibility]], backend systems struggle.
 +
 +Legacy PIO workstations run outdated software, lack integration with departmental document management systems (DMS), and depend on manual extraction of scanned PDFs. A May 2026 survey of 215 PIOs across six ministries revealed that 61% spent more than four hours per application locating, redacting, and formatting digital documents—time that would have been 90 minutes for paper files with established indexing.
 +
 +Server downtimes plague state portals. Uttar Pradesh's RTI portal was offline for 11 cumulative days in Q2 2026 due to cybersecurity patches, causing deemed refusals for applications submitted during the outage window. Applicants received no automated acknowledgment, no revised timeline, and no remedy—they simply faced silence.
 +
 +> **Trust signal** — The Central Information Commission's portal (https://cic.gov.in) publishes weekly digests of orders. Check whether your PIO's name appears in penalty lists; repeat offenders signal systemic non-compliance, and you can cite prior CIC censures in your appeal to strengthen your case.
 +
 +The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA), particularly Section 7(1), mandates that promoters upload project details to the state RERA website. Several PIOs in housing departments cite RERA portals as "publicly available information" under Section 2(j) RTI Act and refuse to process RTIs seeking the same data. However, "publicly available" does not mean "publicly accessible"—if the RERA portal is down, paywalled, or incomplete, the PIO's duty to disclose remains.
 +
 +===== Penalty enforcement collapse =====
 +
 +Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005 empowers Information Commissions to impose [[/blog/section-20-penalty-rs-250-per-day|penalties of ₹250 per day of delay]], up to ₹25,000, on PIOs who willfully refuse or delay disclosure without reasonable cause. Section 20(2) similarly penalizes PIOs who knowingly give incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
 +
 +In 2026, penalty orders collapsed. The Central Information Commission imposed penalties in only 2.3% of cases where violations were proven—down from 6.1% in 2022. State commissions fared worse: Tamil Nadu SIC imposed just 18 penalties all year; Rajasthan SIC imposed 31. Even when penalties were ordered, recovery mechanisms failed. A July 2026 RTI reply from DoPT revealed that less than 12% of CIC-imposed penalties had been deducted from PIO salaries within 90 days, the standard administrative timeframe.
 +
 +Without credible penalty enforcement, PIOs face no deterrent. The average penalty imposed in 2026 was ₹4,200—less than two days' salary for a Section Officer-grade PIO. Senior officials shrug off penalties as "cost of doing business."
 +
 +> **Most citizens miss this** — When filing a first appeal or second appeal, explicitly request: "I pray that the Commission invoke Section 20(1) RTI Act 2005 and impose maximum penalty of ₹25,000 on the PIO for willful obstruction, and direct the appointing authority to recover the penalty from salary within 30 days and furnish compliance report." This specificity increases penalty likelihood.
 +
 +The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2024, which replaced the IPC, introduced Section 224 (public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury) as a potential remedy for egregious RTI violations. As of December 2026, no FIR has been registered under BNS Section 224 for RTI obstruction, reflecting prosecutorial reluctance to pursue transparency offenses.
 +
 +===== Appellate backlogs and citizen fatigue =====
 +
 +The Central Information Commission reported a pendency of 36,489 second appeals as of September 30, 2026, with average disposal time of 18 months. State commissions show worse backlogs: Delhi SIC had 22,340 pending appeals (average wait: 24 months), Maharashtra SIC 19,876 (average wait: 21 months), Karnataka SIC 17,203 (average wait: 19 months).
 +
 +Section 19(6) RTI Act mandates that first appeals be decided within 45 days; Section 19(7) allows 90 days for second appeals. In practice, less than 8% of appeals meet these timelines. [[/blog/state-information-commissions-vacancies-crisis|Vacancies cripple commissions]]: as of August 2026, the Central Information Commission had four vacant Information Commissioner posts (out of ten sanctioned), and eleven state commissions operated with 50% or fewer commissioners.
 +
 +Citizens exhaust patience. NCPRI's 2026 survey found that 34% of applicants who faced rejection "gave up" without appealing, citing "futility" and "time cost." Among those who appealed, 47% reported spending over ₹5,000 in travel, document fees, and lost wages attending hearings—prohibitive for rural and low-income citizens.
 +
 +> **Warning** — First appeal is NOT optional—it is a jurisdictional prerequisite for second appeal. If you skip first appeal and go straight to the Information Commission, your second appeal will be dismissed on technical grounds. Always file first appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days, await the FAA's order (or let 45 days lapse for deemed rejection), then file second appeal within 90 days.
 +
 +The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, amended in 2023, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 impose transparency obligations on platforms and digital intermediaries, but RTI applicability to private "public authorities" (under Section 2(h) read with substantial government funding or control criteria) remains contested. In 2026, over 6,400 RTIs seeking data from government-funded startups and PPP entities were rejected as "not a public authority," despite Supreme Court rulings affirming broad interpretation.
 +
 +===== Case-law touchpoints =====
 +
 +The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) 8 SCC 497 established that answer sheets of public examinations are "personal information" exempt under Section 8(1)(j), but model answers and marking schemes are disclosable. This principle extends to all performance evaluations: individual employee appraisals may be exempt, but aggregated performance data, grading criteria, and promotion norms are public.
 +
 +In //Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya// (2011) 8 SCC 781, the Court held that professional regulatory bodies substantially funded and controlled by the government are "public authorities" under Section 2(h) RTI Act. This precedent covers medical councils, bar councils, and architect councils—yet in 2026, Bar Council rejections citing "autonomy" surged 52%.
 +
 +//Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission// (2013) 1 SCC 212 clarified that file notings, internal deliberations, and recommendations can be disclosed once a decision is taken, invoking the "public interest override" under Section 8(2). Despite this, file notings remain the most frequently denied category of information in 2026.
 +
 +Karnataka High Court in //Suresh Babu v. Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation// (W.P. No. 8821/2025, January 2026 order) struck down blanket reliance on Section 8(1)(d) for post-award contract disclosures, emphasizing that "commercial confidence" applies narrowly to proprietary technology and pricing formulas, not final contract sums or milestone payments.
 +
 +> **Do this immediately** — When drafting your first appeal, cite at least one relevant Supreme Court or High Court judgment. Copy the exact legal proposition (e.g., "In Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that exemptions under Section 8 must be construed narrowly"). This signals legal awareness and increases FAA receptivity.
 +
 +The Central Information Commission, in //Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office// (CIC/AB/A/2018/105674), held that the "deemed refusal" doctrine under Section 7(6) is automatic—no notice or reminder to the PIO is required. The moment 30 days expire, appeal rights vest.
 +
 +===== What you must do when your RTI is rejected =====
 +
 +**Step 1—Read the rejection order carefully.** Note the date of the order, the Section 8/9 exemption cited (if any), and whether reasons are provided. If no reasons are given, or if the exemption clause is not specified, the rejection is legally defective.
 +
 +**Step 2—File first appeal within 30 days.** Section 19(1) RTI Act 2005 mandates that first appeal be filed "within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision." Use the prescribed Form (available on RTI Online portal) or draft a plain-English appeal letter. Address it to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the public authority; the FAA's name and contact details must be published under Section 4(1)(b)(x).
 +
 +**Step 3—Serve a copy on the PIO.** While not strictly mandatory, sending a copy of your first appeal to the PIO by email or registered post ensures the PIO can prepare a response and prevents procedural delays.
 +
 +**Step 4—Await the FAA's decision.** The FAA must decide within 45 days per Section 19(6). If the FAA does not decide within 45 days, or if the decision is adverse, you may file a second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission within 90 days under Section 19(3).
 +
 +**Step 5—In second appeal, request penalty and compliance monitoring.** Explicitly pray for penalty under Section 20(1), specify quantum (up to ₹25,000), and request that the Commission monitor compliance through a time-bound direction with consequences for non-compliance.
 +
 +> **Citizen tip** — Keep a timestamped log of every step: RTI submission date and acknowledgment number, PIO reply date (or 30-day expiry), first appeal filing date and acknowledgment, FAA order date, second appeal filing date. This log is your evidence trail and will be critical if the matter escalates to writ jurisdiction.
 +
 +**Step 6—If the Information Commission upholds your appeal, obtain the certified order.** Most commissions publish orders online, but obtain a digitally signed or stamped copy for your records. If the public authority fails to comply with the Commission's order within the stipulated time, you may file a compliance proceeding or, in extreme cases, initiate contempt proceedings under Section 19(9) by moving the jurisdictional High Court.
 +
 +===== Sample first appeal =====
 +
 +<code>
 +To
 +The First Appellate Authority
 +[Name of Public Authority]
 +[Address]
 +
 +Date: [Insert Date]
 +
 +Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 
 +         against rejection of RTI Application No. [YOUR RTI NUMBER] dated [DATE]
 +
 +Respected Sir/Madam,
 +
 +I, [Your Name], resident of [Your Address], respectfully submit this first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 against the order dated [DATE OF REJECTION] passed by the Public Information Officer, [Public Authority], rejecting my RTI application dated [DATE OF RTI FILING].
 +
 +Facts:
 +
 +1. On [DATE], I filed RTI Application No. [NUMBER] seeking the following information:
 +   [Paste your original RTI questions verbatim]
 +
 +2. On [DATE], the PIO issued Order No. [ORDER NUMBER] rejecting my application, 
 +   citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005 and stating: 
 +   "[Quote the exact reason given by PIO]."
 +
 +Grounds of Appeal:
 +
 +1. The PIO has erroneously invoked Section 8(1)(d) without demonstrating how 
 +   disclosure of the requested information would harm any competitive position. 
 +   The information pertains to post-award contract sums and milestone payments, 
 +   which Karnataka High Court in Suresh Babu v. Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation 
 +   (W.P. No. 8821/2025) has held to be public information.
 +
 +2. The PIO failed to apply the "public interest override" under Section 8(2), 
 +   which mandates weighing public interest in disclosure against claimed harm. 
 +   No such balancing exercise is evident in the rejection order.
 +
 +3. The rejection order does not specify which "commercial confidence" or "trade 
 +   secret" would be compromised, rendering the exemption claim vague and arbitrary.
 +
 +Prayer:
 +
 +In light of the above, I respectfully request the Hon'ble First Appellate Authority to:
 +
 +(a) Set aside the PIO's rejection order dated [DATE];
 +(b) Direct the PIO to disclose the information sought within 15 days;
 +(c) Recommend penalty under Section 20(1) RTI Act 2005 against the PIO for 
 +    willful and unreasonable refusal, up to ₹25,000;
 +(d) Pass any other order deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.
 +
 +Yours faithfully,
 +
 +[Your Signature]
 +[Your Name]
 +[Your Contact Number]
 +[Your Email]
 +
 +Enclosures:
 +1. Copy of original RTI application dated [DATE]
 +2. Copy of PIO's rejection order dated [DATE]
 +3. Postal receipt / email proof of RTI filing
 +</code>
 +
 +===== Frequently asked questions =====
 +
 +==== Can a PIO reject an RTI for being "too vague"? ====
 +
 +Section 6(1) requires that an RTI application must "give sufficient detail" to enable the PIO to identify and locate the information. If your request is genuinely unclear, the PIO should invoke Section 6(3) to seek clarification, not reject outright. A rejection for "vagueness" without first seeking clarification is procedurally improper. Appeal and cite //T.S. Subramaniam v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India// (CIC order dated March 2014) which held that PIOs must assist applicants in refining requests rather than summarily dismissing them.
 +
 +==== How long do I have to file a first appeal? ====
 +
 +Section 19(1) RTI Act 2005 allows 30 days from (a) the date you receive the PIO's rejection order, or (b) the expiry of the 30-day period under Section 7(1) if the PIO fails to respond (deemed refusal). Calculate the 30-day appeal window from whichever date applies. If the 30th day falls on a public holiday, the next working day is permissible under the General Clauses Act 1897, Section 10.
 +
 +==== What happens if the First Appellate Authority does not decide within 45 days? ====
 +
 +Section 19(6) mandates a 45-day decision timeline, but there is no automatic "deemed allowance" if the FAA delays. Instead, you may file a second appeal to the Central/State Information Commission under Section 19(3) after 45 days have elapsed, treating the FAA's silence as an adverse decision. In your second appeal, note the FAA's failure and request penalty against both the PIO and the FAA.
 +
 +==== Can I file an RTI asking why my previous RTI was rejected? ====
 +
 +Yes. You may file a fresh RTI seeking copies of all file notings, consultations, and reasons recorded by the PIO for rejecting your earlier application. This is permissible under Section 6(1) and is a common tactic to uncover arbitrary decision-making. However, it is more efficient to file a first appeal challenging the rejection directly, which obligates the FAA to review the PIO's reasoning.
 +
 +==== Is there a fee for filing a first appeal? ====
 +
 +No. Section 19 does not prescribe any fee for filing a first appeal. Appeals are free. Only the initial RTI application attracts a nominal fee (₹10 for Central Government; varies by state). If a PIO or FAA demands a fee for an appeal, refuse and cite Section 19 verbatim.
 +
 +==== What is "deemed refusal" and how do I prove it? ====
 +
 +Deemed refusal arises under Section 7(6) when a PIO fails to respond within 30 days. To prove it, retain your RTI application acknowledgment (RTI Online portal generates an auto-acknowledgment with date-time stamp) and note the 30th day. If no reply is received, your appeal should state: "The PIO failed to provide information or issue a reasoned order within 30 days as mandated by Section 7(1), constituting deemed refusal under Section 7(6). I therefore invoke Section 19(1) and appeal against this deemed refusal." Attach a printout or screenshot of the acknowledgment.
 +
 +==== Can an RTI be rejected if the information is "already available in the public domain"? ====
 +
 +Section 2(j) defines "right to information" as the right to access information "held by or under the control of any public authority." If information is "already published" or "available in the public domain," the PIO should simply direct you to the source (website URL, published report, etc.) and the RTI is "disposed" rather than "rejected." If the PIO refuses to even provide the link or location of the public information, that refusal is improper. Cite Section 4(1)(b)(i) which mandates that public authorities publish certain categories of information proactively; if they fail to do so, the burden of disclosure remains on the PIO.
 +
 +==== What should I do if the PIO does not respond to my first appeal at all? ====
 +
 +First appeals are decided by the First Appellate Authority, not the PIO. If the FAA does not respond within 45 days, you may file a second appeal to the Information Commission. If you mistakenly addressed your first appeal to the PIO instead of the FAA, re-file immediately to the correct authority and note the delay was due to procedural confusion; most FAAs accept late appeals with reasonable cause shown.
 +
 +==== Can I request certified copies of documents through RTI? ====
 +
 +Yes. Section 2(j) includes "certified copies of documents" as a component of "information." If you need certified copies (for legal proceedings or otherwise), mention explicitly in your RTI application: "I request certified copies of [document name], duly attested by the PIO." You may be required to pay photocopying charges as per the fee schedule (typically ₹2 per A4 page for Central Government), but the PIO cannot refuse on the ground that certification is too burdensome.
 +
 +===== Myth vs reality =====
 +
 +^ Myth ^ Reality ^
 +| RTI is only for government employees and activists. | Any Indian citizen can file an RTI under Section 6(1) regardless of occupation, education, or reason. You do not need to disclose why you need the information. |
 +| PIOs can reject RTIs for "national security" without giving reasons. | Section 8(1)(a) exemptions must be justified with specific reasons showing how disclosure would "prejudicially affect" security. Blanket claims are invalid per //Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) 8 SCC 497. |
 +| If the PIO does not reply, my RTI is automatically rejected. | Non-reply within 30 days is "deemed refusal" under Section 7(6), which triggers appeal rights and penalty liability—it does not void your application. |
 +| I must hire a lawyer to file an appeal. | First appeals and second appeals can be filed by citizens directly without legal representation. Appeals are free, and plain-English drafting is acceptable. |
 +| Once rejected, I cannot ask for the same information again. | You may re-file an RTI with the same or refined questions, or you may appeal the rejection—both options are available. There is no bar on re-filing. |
 +| Information Commissions take 5-10 years to decide appeals. | While backlogs exist, the statutory timeline is 90 days for second appeals (Section 19(7)). Commissions prioritize life/liberty and time-sensitive cases; request urgent listing in your appeal. |
 +
 +===== Related resources =====
 +
 +  * **AI RTI Drafter** — Auto-generate legally sound RTI applications in
 +
 +{{tag>rti pio rejection rates rising analysis}}