Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, MHA — Silence Is Deemed Refusal

The CIC held in 2008 that a PIO's failure to respond within 30 days under §7(1) is a “deemed refusal” and triggers mandatory penalty under §20(1) for each day of delay beyond the statutory limit. PIOs cannot escape liability by eventually replying late.

This ruling is foundational for timeline enforcement — cite it in every appeal where the PIO failed to respond on time.

Arvind Kejriwal (then with Parivartan, an RTI activist group) filed RTI applications with the Ministry of Home Affairs and other Central Government bodies. The PIOs failed to respond within the 30-day period prescribed by §7(1). Kejriwal appealed to the CIC, seeking both information and penalty against the defaulting PIOs.

The CIC held: (1) §7(1) creates a statutory duty to respond within 30 days (or 48 hours for life-or-liberty matters under §7(1) proviso); (2) silence beyond 30 days is a “deemed refusal” under §7(2) — the applicant can immediately approach the first appellate authority or CIC/SIC without waiting further; (3) §20(1) penalty at ₹250 per day (maximum ₹25,000) is mandatory — the PIO cannot escape penalty by eventual compliance; (4) “sufficient cause” under §20(1)(i) must be independently established by the PIO, not presumed.

“Section 7(1) imposes a non-negotiable duty on the PIO to provide information within thirty days of receipt of the application. Silence beyond this period is not merely non-compliance — it is a deemed refusal under Section 7(2). The PIO who fails to respond within the statutory period is liable to penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of two hundred and fifty rupees per day subject to a maximum of twenty-five thousand rupees. This liability arises from the date of deemed refusal, not from the date the PIO eventually provides the information.”

— CIC order in RTI appeals filed by Parivartan / Arvind Kejriwal, 2008

• Count exactly 30 days from the date the PIO received your application (not the date you posted it). Day 31 onwards is deemed refusal — you can file a first appeal immediately.
• In your first appeal, ask the FAA to: (a) order disclosure, and (b) show cause to the PIO for §20(1) penalty citing this CIC ruling.
• If the PIO eventually replies but late, the penalty clock ran from Day 31 — late compliance does not wipe out the penalty liability.
• For life-or-liberty matters (health, liberty, safety), the deadline is 48 hours under §7(1) proviso — any delay there is even more egregious.
• Use our PIO Reply Checker to calculate exact delay days and auto-compute the maximum penalty exposure.

• §7 — Time limit for response
• §19 — First and second appeal procedure
• §20 — Penalty provisions

Day 1 is the day the PIO's office receives the application (not the day you sent it). If you filed online via rtionline.gov.in, the acknowledgment date is Day 0. Day 30 is the last day for a compliant response. If Day 30 falls on a government holiday, it rolls to the next working day.

No. §6(3) gives the transferring PIO 5 days to transfer. The receiving department then has 30 days from the date of transfer receipt — but your total wait is capped at 35 days from original filing. Any longer is deemed refusal at the Central Government level.

Under §7(3), if the PIO believes 30 days are insufficient, they must inform you within the deadline of: (a) the reasons for delay, (b) the new date of supply, and © your right to complain. Mere silence without this notice is still deemed refusal.

Technically no — §20(1) penalty is mandatory unless the PIO proves “sufficient cause.” But in practice, many CIC orders accept a genuine explanation (e.g., PIO was on medical leave, no substitute designated) as sufficient cause. Push back if the excuse is weak.

Verified source: CIC orders in Parivartan RTI appeals, 2008 · RTI Act §7(1) and §20(1)