Differences

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(journalists module 02, drafting rtis that survive pio refusal)&metatag-description=(RTI for Journalists — Investigative Filing Course — Module 02: Drafting RTIs that survive PIO refusal. Write applications a PIO cant legally refuse.)}}
+====== Module 02 — Drafting RTIs that survive PIO refusal ======
+{{ :social:auto:journalists-module-02.png?direct&1200 |RTI for Journalists — Investigative Filing Course Module 02}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Quick Reply:** RTI for Journalists — Investigative Filing Course — Module 02: Drafting RTIs that survive PIO refusal. Write applications a PIO cant legally refuse.
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**Goal:** Write applications a PIO can't legally refuse.
+</WRAP>
+===== Frame for disclosability =====
+  - Ask for **records that exist**: invoices, orders, file notings (post-decision), minutes, lists.
+  - Avoid asking **why** decisions were taken — ask for **reasons recorded** in the file.
+  - Avoid named third-party data unless the public-interest case is iron-clad (§8(1)(j) vs §8(2)).
+  - For §8(1)(d) commercial-confidence: ask for **post-award** records — they're disclosable per consistent HC rulings.
+===== 5 patterns that always work =====
+  - **"Year-wise"** — "Year-wise expenditure on X for FY 2020-21 to FY 2025-26" — easier for PIO to retrieve, harder to refuse.
+  - **"List of"** — "List of contractors awarded works above ₹50L in FY 2024-25" — pure record disclosure.
+  - **"Copies of"** — "Copies of all letters sent by X office to Y office between [dates]" — discrete files, easy to sever.
+  - **"Statistics on"** — "Number of complaints received and resolved on issue X in FY 2024-25" — aggregate data, no privacy issue.
+  - **"Reasons recorded for"** — "Reasons recorded in the file for [decision X]" — specific, file-bound.
+===== Anticipate §8 objections =====
+For each sub-question, write a 1-line **counter-argument** in the application itself, citing case law:
+  - Anticipate §8(1)(d): "//The information sought is post-decisional and the tender process is concluded; §8(1)(d) does not apply per Bombay HC in [case].//"
+  - Anticipate §8(1)(e): "//The records are held in the course of statutory duty, not in fiduciary capacity; §8(1)(e) does not apply per SC in Union of India v. Patel (March 2026).//"
+  - Anticipate §8(1)(j): "//The information is about public activity of public servants; §8(1)(j) does not apply per Karnataka HC 9-Feb-2026.//"
+This pre-empts the standard refusal — PIOs hate having their boilerplate exemption-claim already torn apart in the application.
+===== Word-budget the application =====
+PIOs glaze over after 2 pages. Keep applications **tight**:
+  - Header (5 lines)
+  - 1-line intro
+  - 4-7 numbered sub-questions, each 1-2 lines
+  - Fee declaration (1 line)
+  - Footer (signature + ID + phone)
+A 1-page application gets answered. A 5-page application gets returned for 'simplification' under §7(9).
+===== When in doubt, file two =====
+Two narrow, focused RTIs > one broad. PIOs can §7(9) reject "voluminous" — but cannot reject "specific". Split a tender RTI into:
+  - RTI A: technical bid document + evaluation matrix
+  - RTI B: financial bid documents + comparative chart
+===== ✅ Quiz =====
+Quiz available from your [[:courses:journalists:app|course dashboard]].
+===== Next =====
+  * [[:courses:journalists:start|← Course overview]]
+  * Next: [[:courses:journalists:final]]
+//Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.//
+{{tag>course journalists module-02}}