Table of Contents
§7(9) improper form departure — Delhi HC
High Court of Delhi · 2018-01-01 · Citation awaited
§7(9) departures must be reasoned; 'convenience of the PIO' is not a valid ground.
Case details
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2018-01-01 |
| Citation | Citation awaited |
| Petitioner | RTI applicant |
| Respondent | PIO |
| RTI Act sections | §7(9) |
| Outcome | Applicant allowed |
Outcome
A departure from the applicant's requested form under §7(9) must be reasoned and limited to disproportionate-effort or record-safety grounds.
Ratio decidendi
§7(9) permits a PIO to provide information in a form different from the one requested only where compliance would 'disproportionately divert the resources' of the public authority or 'be detrimental to the safety or preservation' of the record. Mere convenience is not enough; the departure must be in a written reasoned order.
Keywords
§7(9), alternative form, Delhi HC, reasoned departure
Similar cases in the corpus
These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.
- PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC (HC-BOM 2014)
- Union of India v. R. Jayachandran (SC 2017)
- Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (HC-DEL 2010)
- PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC (HC-CAL 2019)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.
Discussion