Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | case-law:cic-2008-arvind-kejriwal-timeline [2026/07/22 17:47] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO, MHA — Silence Is Deemed Refusal ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round info 95%> | ||
| + | **Quick Reply:** CIC 2008: silence beyond §7 1's 30-day limit is deemed refusal. Penalty for every day of delay is mandatory. Citizen guide with operative paragraph and appeal tips. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | **The CIC held in 2008 that a PIO's failure to respond within 30 days under §7(1) is a " | ||
| + | |||
| + | This ruling is foundational for timeline enforcement — cite it in every appeal where the PIO failed to respond on time. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Facts ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== What the CIC held ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Operative paragraph ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | > " | ||
| + | > | ||
| + | > — CIC order in RTI appeals filed by Parivartan / Arvind Kejriwal, 2008 | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== How this helps your appeal ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * 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 [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related sections of the RTI Act ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== FAQ ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== How do I calculate the 30-day period? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Does the 30-day limit reset if my RTI was transferred to another department? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== What if the PIO says the information is being compiled? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Under §7(3), if the PIO believes 30 days are insufficient, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Can the CIC waive the penalty if the PIO apologises? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Technically no — §20(1) penalty is mandatory unless the PIO proves " | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Verified source:** CIC orders in Parivartan RTI appeals, 2008 · RTI Act §7(1) and §20(1) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||