Right to Information Wiki

RTI Act, 2005 (Amended 14 Nov 2025): Full Text

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 07:07:42 +0000

2025/03/02 12:27	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti, right to information act, rti act 2005, online rti act, rti amendment 2019, dpdp rules 2025, section 8(1)(j), section 13, section 16, section 27)
	+	metatag-description=(The complete RTI Act 2005 with every 2019 and DPDP 2025 amendment shown inline. Jump to any section, see the leading case, cite with confidence.)}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
	+	Did you know? Section 22 of the RTI Act gives it overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and over anything inconsistent in any other law in force. A quiet constitutional revolution in six lines of statute.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
	+	New to RTI? Start with the three most-used guides on this site:
	+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]].
	+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected — and How to Avoid It]].
	+	* [[:faq\|FAQ — twenty-five most-asked RTI questions]].
	+	</WRAP>
	+	====== RTI Act, 2005 (Amended 14 Nov 2025): Full Text ======
	+
	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) empowers every Indian citizen to obtain information held by public authorities. This is the complete section-by-section text, amended through 14 November 2025 to incorporate the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 substitution of Section 8(1)(j), and the 2019 amendments to Sections 13, 16 and 27. Each section links to its leading judicial interpretation.
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:act.png?direct&1200 \|act — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	This is the most up-to-date text of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the internet. The Act is presented section by section. Every amendment is marked with a clear in-line overlay showing the exact words substituted, the amending Act, and the Gazette date. The latest amendment — the substitution of Section 8(1)(j) by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — came into force on 14 November 2025 and is reflected below. An earlier overhaul by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, in force from 24 October 2019, amended Sections 13, 16, and 27 and is also reflected.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner\|Page> snippets dpdp banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
	+	First-time reader? Skip to the practical guide: [[file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 Step-by-Step Guide]]. Ten minutes, Rs 10, reply within thirty days. Then come back here for the full statutory text.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<html>
	+	<style>
	+	.act-search-widget {
	+	background: linear-gradient(135deg, #eef7f2 0%, #fbfcf8 100%);
	+	border: 1px solid #cfe7da;
	+	border-radius: 14px;
	+	padding: 18px 20px;
	+	margin: 18px 0;
	+	box-shadow: 0 4px 14px rgba(11,107,88,0.08);
	+	}
	+	.act-search-widget h2 {
	+	margin: 0 0 4px;
	+	font: 800 1.05rem Inter, system-ui, sans-serif;
	+	color: #0b6b58;
	+	display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 8px;
	+	}
	+	.act-search-widget h2::before { content: "🔎"; }
	+	.act-search-widget .help {
	+	font: 0.86rem Inter; color: #5f6b7a; margin: 0 0 12px;
	+	}
	+	.act-search-form {
	+	display: flex; gap: 8px; flex-wrap: wrap;
	+	margin: 0;
	+	}
	+	.act-search-form input {
	+	flex: 1; min-width: 200px;
	+	padding: 11px 14px;
	+	border: 1px solid #dce3ec; border-radius: 10px;
	+	font: inherit; font-size: 0.96rem;
	+	background: #fff; color: #172033;
	+	}
	+	.act-search-form input:focus { outline: none; border-color: #0b6b58; box-shadow: 0 0 0 3px rgba(11,107,88,0.18); }
	+	.act-search-form button {
	+	padding: 11px 20px;
	+	background: #0b6b58; color: #fff;
	+	border: 0; border-radius: 10px;
	+	font: 700 0.96rem inherit; cursor: pointer;
	+	}
	+	.act-search-form button:hover { background: #094d40; }
	+	.act-results {
	+	margin-top: 16px; max-height: 480px; overflow-y: auto;
	+	background: #fff; border-radius: 10px;
	+	}
	+	.act-results .empty { padding: 16px; color: #5f6b7a; font-style: italic; text-align: center; font-size: 0.92rem; }
	+	.act-result {
	+	padding: 12px 16px;
	+	border-bottom: 1px solid #dce3ec;
	+	transition: background 0.12s;
	+	}
	+	.act-result:last-child { border-bottom: 0; }
	+	.act-result:hover { background: #fafdfa; }
	+	.act-result a {
	+	color: #0b6b58; text-decoration: none; font: 700 0.96rem Inter;
	+	}
	+	.act-result a:hover { color: #094d40; text-decoration: underline; }
	+	.act-result .num {
	+	display: inline-block;
	+	background: rgba(11,107,88,0.12); color: #0b6b58;
	+	padding: 2px 8px; border-radius: 999px;
	+	font: 800 0.74rem Inter; margin-right: 6px;
	+	}
	+	.act-result .excerpt {
	+	margin: 4px 0 0; font: 0.86rem/1.5 Inter; color: #3d4859;
	+	}
	+	.act-result .excerpt mark {
	+	background: #fef3c7; color: #172033; padding: 0 3px; border-radius: 3px;
	+	}
	+	.act-tips {
	+	margin-top: 10px; font: 0.78rem Inter; color: #5f6b7a;
	+	display: flex; gap: 6px; flex-wrap: wrap;
	+	}
	+	.act-tip {
	+	padding: 3px 10px;
	+	background: rgba(255,255,255,0.7);
	+	border: 1px solid #dce3ec; border-radius: 999px;
	+	cursor: pointer; color: #0b6b58; font-weight: 600;
	+	}
	+	.act-tip:hover { background: #0b6b58; color: #fff; border-color: #0b6b58; }
	+	</style>
	+
	+	<div class="act-search-widget">
	+	<h2>Search the RTI Act, 2005</h2>
	+	<p class="help">Search across all 31 sections. Try <strong>"section 8"</strong>, <strong>"first appeal"</strong>, <strong>"deemed refusal"</strong>, or any keyword.</p>
	+	<form class="act-search-form" id="act-search-form" onsubmit="return false;">
	+	<input type="text" id="act-search-input" placeholder="e.g., section 8(1)(j), first appeal, fee, time limit" autocomplete="off">
	+	<button type="submit" id="act-search-btn">Search</button>
	+	</form>
	+	<div class="act-tips">
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="section 8">section 8</span>
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="section 19">first appeal</span>
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="section 7">time limit</span>
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="section 6">filing application</span>
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="section 20">penalty</span>
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="fiduciary">fiduciary</span>
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="public interest">public interest</span>
	+	<span class="act-tip" data-q="severability">severability</span>
	+	</div>
	+	<div class="act-results" id="act-results"></div>
	+	</div>
	+
	+	<script>
	+	(function(){
	+	var box = document.getElementById("act-results");
	+	var inp = document.getElementById("act-search-input");
	+	var btn = document.getElementById("act-search-btn");
	+	var debounceTimer = null;
	+	function escapeHtml(s){return String(s\|\|"").replace(/[&<>\"'`]/g,function(c){return ({"&":"&","<":"<",">":">","\"":""","'":"'"}[c]\|\|c);});}
	+	function highlight(text, q) {
	+	if (!q \|\| q.length < 2) return escapeHtml(text);
	+	var words = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(w){return w.length>=2;});
	+	var html = escapeHtml(text);
	+	words.forEach(function(w){
	+	var re = new RegExp("("+w.replace(/[.*+?^${}()\|[\]\\]/g,"\\$&")+")", "gi");
	+	html = html.replace(re, "<mark>$1</mark>");
	+	});
	+	return html;
	+	}
	+	function search(q){
	+	if (!q) { box.innerHTML = ""; return; }
	+	box.innerHTML = "<div class=\"empty\">Searching...</div>";
	+	fetch("/act-search.php?q=" + encodeURIComponent(q) + "&limit=10")
	+	.then(function(r){return r.json();})
	+	.then(function(d){
	+	if (!d.results \|\| !d.results.length) { box.innerHTML = "<div class=\"empty\">No matches in the Act for ""+escapeHtml(q)+"".</div>"; return; }
	+	box.innerHTML = d.results.map(function(r){
	+	return "<div class=\"act-result\">"
	+	+ "<a href=\""+r.url+"\"><span class=\"num\">§"+r.num+"</span>"+escapeHtml(r.title)+"</a>"
	+	+ "<div class=\"excerpt\">"+highlight(r.excerpt, q)+"</div>"
	+	+ "</div>";
	+	}).join("");
	+	})
	+	.catch(function(){ box.innerHTML = "<div class=\"empty\">Search failed. Try again.</div>"; });
	+	}
	+	inp.addEventListener("input", function(){
	+	clearTimeout(debounceTimer);
	+	debounceTimer = setTimeout(function(){ search(inp.value.trim()); }, 220);
	+	});
	+	btn.addEventListener("click", function(){ search(inp.value.trim()); });
	+	document.querySelectorAll(".act-tip").forEach(function(t){
	+	t.addEventListener("click", function(){ inp.value = t.dataset.q; search(t.dataset.q); inp.focus(); });
	+	});
	+	})();
	+	</script>
	+	</html>
	+
	+
	+	===== The Act as it stands today =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005) came into force on 12 October 2005. The Act has since been amended twice.
	+
	+	* The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019, amended Sections 13 and 16 on the term of office and the salaries of the Chief Information Commissioner, the Information Commissioners, and their State-level counterparts, and added corresponding rule-making powers in Section 27. The fixed term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five, whichever was earlier, has been replaced by terms prescribed by the Central Government. The current terms and salaries are prescribed under the //Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners and the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners in State Information Commission) Rules, 2019//.
	+	* The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), in force from 14 November 2025 on notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, substituted clause (j) of Section 8(1). The earlier proviso on the larger public interest override has been removed. The override now operates through Section 8(2), which has not been amended. See [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]] and [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].
	+
	+	On this page, amendments are marked with an in-line overlay at the relevant sub-section. The pre-amendment text is shown struck-through and the amended text appears in plain type. The overall Act text is otherwise preserved as enacted.
	+
	+	===== How to use this page =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	This page carries the full section-wise text of the Right to Information Act, 2005, with amendment overlays at every section that has been amended. The reader may:
	+
	+	* Use the browser search shortcut Ctrl+F (Windows, Linux) or Cmd+F (Mac) to find a phrase within the Act.
	+	* Jump to any section using the index immediately below.
	+	* Follow the "leading case" link next to key sections to read the governing judgment.
	+	* Follow the "see also" link to the relevant concept explainer for practitioner notes.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+	===== Amendment timeline =====
	+
	+	{{ :infographics:rti-amendment-timeline.png?direct&1200 \|RTI Act Amendment Timeline 2005 -> 2019 -> 2025}}
	+
	+	===== Per-section detailed pages =====
	+
	+	Each section of the RTI Act now has its own dedicated page with legal text, case-law analysis, amendment timeline, drafting strategies, and FAQ. Flagship deep-dives marked with a star.
	+
	+	* [[act:section-1\|Section 1 — Short title, extent and commencement]]
	+	* [[act:section-2\|Section 2 — Definitions]]
	+	* [[act:section-3\|Section 3 — Right to information]]
	+	* [[act:section-4\|Section 4 — Obligations of public authorities]]
	+	* [[act:section-5\|Section 5 — Designation of PIOs]]
	+	* [[act:section-6\|Section 6 — Request for obtaining information]] ⭐
	+	* [[act:section-7\|Section 7 — Disposal of request (30-day rule)]] ⭐
	+	* [[act:section-8\|Section 8 — Exemptions from disclosure]] ⭐
	+	* [[act:section-9\|Section 9 — Grounds for rejection to access]]
	+	* [[act:section-10\|Section 10 — Severability]]
	+	* [[act:section-11\|Section 11 — Third-party information]]
	+	* [[act:section-12\|Section 12 — Constitution of the CIC]]
	+	* [[act:section-13\|Section 13 — Term of office CIC (amended 2019)]]
	+	* [[act:section-14\|Section 14 — Removal of CIC]]
	+	* [[act:section-15\|Section 15 — Constitution of SIC]]
	+	* [[act:section-16\|Section 16 — Term of office SIC (amended 2019)]]
	+	* [[act:section-17\|Section 17 — Removal SIC]]
	+	* [[act:section-18\|Section 18 — Powers of Information Commissions]]
	+	* [[act:section-19\|Section 19 — Appeals]] ⭐
	+	* [[act:section-20\|Section 20 — Penalties]]
	+	* [[act:section-21\|Section 21 — Protection of action in good faith]]
	+	* [[act:section-22\|Section 22 — Act to have overriding effect]]
	+	* [[act:section-23\|Section 23 — Bar of jurisdiction of courts]]
	+	* [[act:section-24\|Section 24 — Act not to apply to certain organisations]]
	+	* [[act:section-25\|Section 25 — Monitoring and reporting]]
	+	* [[act:section-26\|Section 26 — Government to prepare programmes]]
	+	* [[act:section-27\|Section 27 — Rule-making by Appropriate Government]]
	+	* [[act:section-28\|Section 28 — Rule-making by competent authority]]
	+	* [[act:section-29\|Section 29 — Laying of rules]]
	+	* [[act:section-30\|Section 30 — Power to remove difficulties]]
	+	* [[act:section-31\|Section 31 — Repeal]]
	+
	+	===== Jump to a section =====
	+
	+	Chapter I — Preliminary. [[act#section-1preliminary-short-title-extent-and-commencement\|§ 1 Short title]] · [[act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|§ 2 Definitions]]
	+
	+	Chapter II — Right to information and obligations of public authorities. [[act#section-3citizen\|§ 3 Right to information]] · [[act#section-4obligations-of-public-authorities\|§ 4 Obligations / suo motu]] · [[act#section-5designation-of-public-information-officers\|§ 5 Designation of PIOs]] · [[act#section-6request-for-obtaining-information\|§ 6 Request]] · [[act#section-7disposal-of-request\|§ 7 Disposal]] · [[act#section-8exemption-from-disclosure-of-information\|§ 8 Exemptions]] · [[act#section-9grounds-for-rejection-to-access-in-certain-cases\|§ 9 Copyright]] · [[act#section-10severability\|§ 10 Severability]] · [[act#section-11third-party-information\|§ 11 Third party]]
	+
	+	Chapter III — Central Information Commission. [[act#section-12constitution-of-central-information-commission\|§ 12 Constitution]] · [[act#section-13term-of-office-and-conditions-of-service\|§ 13 Term + salary]] · [[act#section-14removal-of-chief-information-commissioner-or-information-commissioner\|§ 14 Removal]]
	+
	+	Chapter IV — State Information Commission. [[act#section-15constitution-of-state-information-commission\|§ 15 Constitution]] · [[act#section-16term-of-office-and-conditions-of-service\|§ 16 Term + salary]] · [[act#section-17removal-of-state-chief-information-commissioner-or-state-information-commissioner\|§ 17 Removal]]
	+
	+	Chapter V — Powers, appeal, and penalty. [[act#section-18powers-and-functions-of-information-commissions\|§ 18 Powers of Commission]] · [[act#section-19appeal\|§ 19 Appeal]] · [[act#section-20-penalties\|§ 20 Penalties]]
	+
	+	Chapter VI — Miscellaneous. [[act#section-21protection-of-action-taken-in-good-faith\|§ 21 Good-faith protection]] · [[act#section-22act-to-have-overriding-effect\|§ 22 Overriding effect]] · [[act#section-23bar-of-jurisdiction-of-courts\|§ 23 Bar of jurisdiction]] · [[act#section-24act-not-to-apply-to-certain-organisations\|§ 24 Exempt organisations]] · [[act#section-25monitoring-and-reporting\|§ 25 Monitoring]] · [[act#section-26appropriate-government-to-prepare-programmes\|§ 26 Programmes]] · [[act#section-27power-to-make-rules-by-appropriate-government\|§ 27 Rules by Government]] · [[act#section-28power-to-make-rules-by-competent-authority\|§ 28 Rules by competent authority]] · [[act#section-29laying-of-rules\|§ 29 Laying of rules]] · [[act#section-30power-to-remove-difficulties\|§ 30 Remove difficulties]] · [[act#section-31repeal\|§ 31 Repeal]]
	+
	+	====== Preamble ======
	+	An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto
	+
	+	Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
	+
	+	And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
	+
	+	And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
	+
	+	And whereas it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;
	+
	+	Now, therefore, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it.
	+
	+	Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows
	+
	+	===== Chapter I =====
	+	==== Section 1: Preliminary Short title, extent and commencement ====
	+	1. Short title
	+	- This Act may be called the Right to Information Act, 2005.
	+	- It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
	+	- The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5, sections 12, 13, 15,16, 24, 27 and 28 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force on the one hundred and twentieth day of its enactment.
	+
	+	==== Section 2: Preliminary Definitions ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>Leading cases for Section 2. Scope of "information" under Section 2(f): [[important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] (2011) 8 SCC 497. Test for "public authority" under Section 2(h): [[important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank v. State of Kerala]] (2013) 16 SCC 82. See also: [[explanations:information\|Information]] · [[explanations:public-authority\|Public authority]] · [[explanations:substantially-financed\|Substantially financed]].</WRAP>
	+
	+	2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
	+
	+	(a) "appropriate Government" means in relation to a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or [[explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] by funds provided directly or indirectly
	+
	+	(i) by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, the Central Government;
	+	(ii) by the State Government, the State Government;
	+
	+	(b) "Central Information Commission" means the Central Information Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of section 12;
	+
	+	(c) "Central Public Information Officer" means the Central Public Information Officer designated under sub-section (1) and includes a Central Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such under sub-section (2) of section 5;
	+
	+	(d) "Chief Information Commissioner" and "Information Commissioner" mean the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner appointed under sub-section (3) of section 12;
	+
	+	(e) "[[explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]]" means—
	+
	+	(i) the Speaker in the case of the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State or a Union territory having such Assembly and the Chairman in the case of the Council of States or Legislative Council of a State;
	+	(ii) the Chief Justice of India in the case of the Supreme Court;
	+	(iii) the Chief Justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court;
	+	(iv) the President or the Governor, as the case may be, in the case of other authorities established or constituted by or under the Constitution;
	+	(v) the administrator appointed under article 239 of the Constitution;
	+
	+
	+	(f) "[[https://righttoinformation.wiki/explanations/information\|information]]" means any material in any form, including [[explanations:file-notings\|records]], documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
	+
	+	(g) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act by the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be;
	+
	+	(h) "[[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]]" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted—
	+
	+	(a) by or under the Constitution;
	+	(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
	+	(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
	+	(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—
	+
	+	(i) body owned, controlled or [[explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially]] organization
	+	(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
	+
	+	(i) "[[explanations:file-notings\|records]]" includes—
	+
	+	(a) any document, manuscript and file;
	+	(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
	+	(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
	+	(d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;
	+
	+	(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—
	+
	+	(i) inspection of work, documents, [[explanations:file-notings\|records]];
	+	(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or [[explanations:file-notings\|records]];
	+	(iii) taking certified samples of material;
	+	(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
	+
	+	(k) "State Information Commission" means the State Information Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of section 15;
	+
	+	(l) "State Chief Information Commissioner" and "State Information Commissioner" mean the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioner appointed under sub-section (3) of section 15;
	+
	+	(m) "State Public Information Officer" means the State Public Information Officer designated under sub-section (1) and includes a State Assistant Public Information Officer designated as such under sub-section (2) of section 5;
	+
	+	(n) "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.
	+
	+
	+	* [[act#rti-wiki\|↑ Back to top]] · [[act#jump-to-a-section\|⇅ Jump to a section]]
	+
	+
	+	=====Chapter II =====
	+	==== Section 3: Citizen ====
	+	3. Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information
	+
	+	==== Section 4: Obligations of Public Authorities ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>See also. [[explanations:suo-moto-disclosure-under-rti\|Suo motu disclosure — practitioner note]]. On the enforcement of Section 4 obligations, see the Commission line in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2019) 10 SCC 1.</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+	4. (1) Every public authority shall—
	+	a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
	+	b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,—
	+
	+	(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
	+
	+	(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
	+
	+	(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
	+
	+	(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
	+
	+	(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
	+
	+	(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
	+
	+	(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
	+
	+	(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
	+
	+	(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
	+
	+	(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
	+
	+	(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
	+
	+	(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
	+
	+	(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it
	+
	+	(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
	+
	+	(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
	+
	+	(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
	+
	+	(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these publications every year;
	+
	+	c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
	+
	+	d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
	+
	+	(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
	+
	+	(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.
	+
	+	(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.
	+
	+	Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.
	+
	+	==== Section 5: Designation of Public Information Officers ====
	+	5. (1) Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the information under this Act.
	+
	+	(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be:
	+
	+	Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given to a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, a period of five days shall be added in computing the period for response specified under sub-section (1) of section 7.
	+
	+	(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.
	+
	+	(4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.
	+
	+	(5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer ([[explanations:deemed-cpio\|Deemed PIO]])(({{:explanations:deemed-cpio.pdf\|CIC OM No: 1/14/2008-IR dated 28th July 2008 titled: Clarifications regarding Sub-Section (4) and (5) of the Right to Information Act 2005}})), as the case may be.
	+
	+	==== Section 6: Request for obtaining information ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>Leading case. [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs\|Ketan Kantilal Modi v. Central Board of Excise & Customs]] — scope of Sections 6(1) and 6(3). See also: [[guide:applicant\|Guide for applicants]] · [[templates:first-rti\|Template — first RTI application]].</WRAP>
	+
	+	6. (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—
	+
	+	(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;
	+
	+	(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
	+
	+	Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing.
	+
	+	(2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.
	+
	+	(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—
	+
	+	(i) which is held by another public authority; or
	+
	+	(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
	+
	+	Provided that the [[explanations:transfer-application\|transfer of an application]](({{:explanations:transfer_of_application_rti.pdf\|Transfer of Application Circulars from CIC}})) pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
	+
	+	==== Section 7: Disposal of request ====
	+	(1) 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:
	+
	+	Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
	+
	+	(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request.
	+
	+	(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving—
	+
	+	(a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub- section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section;
	+
	+	(b) information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms.
	+
	+	(4) Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under this Act and the person to whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall provide assistance to enable access to the information, including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for the inspection.
	+
	+	(5) Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed:
	+
	+	Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.
	+
	+	(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1).
	+
	+	(7) Before taking any decision under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall take into consideration the representation made by a third party under section 11.
	+
	+	(8) Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—
	+
	+	(i) the reasons for such [[explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|rejection]];
	+
	+	(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
	+
	+	(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
	+
	+	(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question((Clarifications regarding format in which the 'Information should be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005. {{::information-format-rti-clarification.pdf\|%%DoPT%% ON No 11/2/2008-IR dated 10th July 2008}})).
	+
	+	==== Section 8: Exemption from disclosure of information ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>Leading cases for Section 8. Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary: [[important-decisions:icai-vs-shaunak-h-satya\|ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya]] (2011) 8 SCC 781. Section 8(1)(j) personal information (as amended 14 November 2025): [[important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC]] (2013) 1 SCC 212. Practitioner note on the amended clause: [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|Section 8(1)(j) after DPDP Rules, 2025]]. See also: [[explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection]] · [[explanations:privacy\|Privacy]] · [[explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|Fiduciary relationship]] · [[explanations:public-interest\|Public interest]].</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+	(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—
	+
	+	(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
	+
	+	(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
	+
	+	(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
	+
	+	(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
	+
	+	(e) information available to a person in his [[explanations:fiduciary-relationship\| fiduciary relationship]], unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
	+
	+	(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;
	+
	+	(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
	+
	+	(h) information which would impede the process of [[explanations:investigation-under-rti\|investigation]] or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
	+
	+	(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
	+
	+	Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
	+
	+	Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
	+
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 8(1)(j) was amended on 14 November 2025 by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, on notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.</wrap>
	+
	+	Before the amendment (pre 14 November 2025), the clause read:
	+
	+	<del>(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the [[explanations:privacy\|privacy]] of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:</del>
	+
	+	As amended, in force from 14 November 2025, the clause reads:
	+
	+	(j) information which relates to personal information.
	+
	+	//Practitioner note. The public interest override that used to sit within the proviso to clause (j) has been removed. Public interest reasoning under the RTI Act now operates through Section 8(2), which has not been amended. For the full practitioner note, see// [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]].
	+
	+	Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
	+
	+	(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
	+
	+	(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:
	+
	+	Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.
	+
	+	==== Section 9: Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases ====
	+	Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.
	+
	+	==== Section 10: Severability ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>See also. [[explanations:severability\|Severability — practitioner note]]. Section 10 is not affected by the 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j).</WRAP>
	+
	+	[[explanations:severability\|Severability]]
	+	(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.
	+
	+	(2) Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing—
	+
	+	(a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;
	+
	+	(b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;
	+
	+	(c) the name and designation of the person giving the decision;
	+
	+	(d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit; and
	+
	+	(e) his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access.
	+
	+	==== Section 11: Third party information ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>See also. [[explanations:third-party\|Third party — practitioner note]] · [[templates:pio-third-party-notice\|Template — third-party notice]]. Section 11 is not affected by the 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j).</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+	(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] and has been treated as confidential by that [[explanations:third-party\|third party]], the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such [[explanations:third-party\|third party]] of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
	+
	+	Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
	+
	+	(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.
	+
	+	(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.
	+
	+	(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.
	+
	+
	+	* [[act#rti-wiki\|↑ Back to top]] · [[act#jump-to-a-section\|⇅ Jump to a section]]
	+
	+
	+	===== Chapter III =====
	+	==== Section 12: Constitution of Central Information Commission ====
	+
	+	(1) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a body to be known as the Central Information Commission to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.
	+
	+	(2) The Central Information Commission shall consist of—
	+
	+	(a) the Chief Information Commissioner; and
	+
	+	(b) such number of Central Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary.
	+
	+	(3) The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of—
	+
	+	(i) the Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;
	+
	+	(ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and
	+
	+	(iii) a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.
	+
	+	Explanation.—For the purposes of removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People has not been recognised as such, the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the House of the People shall be deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
	+
	+	(4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.
	+
	+	(5) The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.
	+
	+	(6) The Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, as the case may be, or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.
	+
	+	(7) The headquarters of the Central Information Commission shall be at Delhi and the Central Information Commission may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, establish offices at other places in India.
	+
	+	==== Section 13: Term of office and conditions of service ====
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 13(1) was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019. The fixed term of five years and the age-of-sixty-five proviso have been removed. The term of office is now such as may be prescribed by the Central Government under the RTI (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019.</wrap>
	+
	+	(1) The Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall not be eligible for reappointment:
	+
	+	Provided that no Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.
	+
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 13(2) was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019.</wrap>
	+
	+	Before the amendment:
	+
	+	<del>(2) Every Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for reappointment as such Information Commissioner:</del>
	+
	+	As amended:
	+
	+	(2) Every Information Commissioner shall hold office for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government and shall not be eligible for reappointment as such Information Commissioner.
	+
	+	//Practitioner note. The term of office is prescribed under the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners and the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners in State Information Commission) Rules, 2019.//
	+
	+	Provided that every Information Commissioner shall, on vacating his office under this sub-section be eligible for appointment as the Chief Information Commissioner in the manner specified in sub-section (3) of section 12:
	+
	+	Provided further that where the Information Commissioner is appointed as the Chief Information Commissioner, his term of office shall not be more than five years in aggregate as the Information Commissioner and the Chief Information Commissioner.
	+
	+	(3) The Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner shall before he enters upon his office make and subscribe before the President or some other person appointed by him in that behalf, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.
	+
	+	(4) The Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner may, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign from his office:
	+
	+	Provided that the Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner may be removed in the manner specified under section 14.
	+
	+
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 13(5) was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019. The clauses tying the salaries and allowances of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioner respectively have been replaced. The salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service are now such as may be prescribed by the Central Government under the RTI (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019.</wrap>
	+
	+	(5) The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of—
	+
	+	(a) the Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner;
	+
	+	(b) an Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner:
	+
	+	Provided that if the Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of a pension, other than a disability or wound pension, in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of the service as the Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension including any portion of pension which was commuted and pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits excluding pension equivalent of retirement gratuity:
	+
	+	Provided further that if the Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner if, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of retirement benefits in respect of any previous service rendered in a Corporation established by or under any Central Act or State Act or a Government company owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, his salary in respect of the service as the Chief Information Commissioner or an Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of pension equivalent to the retirement benefits:
	+
	+	Provided also that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment.
	+
	+	(6) The Central Government shall provide the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners with such officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, and the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees appointed for the purpose of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed.
	+
	+	==== Section 14: Removal of Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner ====
	+	1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.
	+
	+	(2) The President may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the President has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.
	+
	+	(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the President may by order remove from office the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner if the Chief Information Commissioner or a Information Commissioner, as the case may be,—
	+
	+	(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or
	+
	+	(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the President, involves moral turpitude; or
	+
	+	(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or
	+
	+	(d) is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or
	+
	+	(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the Chief Information Commissioner or a Information Commissioner.
	+
	+	(4) If the Chief Information Commissioner or a Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of India or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour.
	+
	+	* [[act#rti-wiki\|↑ Back to top]] · [[act#jump-to-a-section\|⇅ Jump to a section]]
	+
	+
	+	===== Chapter IV =====
	+	The State Information Commission
	+	==== Section 15: Constitution of State Information Commission ====
	+	(1) Every State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a body to be known as the ......... (name of the State) Information Commission to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.
	+
	+	(2) The State Information Commission shall consist of—
	+
	+	(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner, and
	+	(b) such number of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary.
	+
	+	(3) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of—
	+
	+	(i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;
	+
	+	(ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and
	+
	+	(iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister
	+
	+	Explanation.—For the purposes of removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly has not been recognised as such, the Leader of the single largest group in opposition of the Government in the Legislative Assembly shall be deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
	+
	+	(4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the State Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the State Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.
	+
	+	(5) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.
	+
	+	(6) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, as the case may be, or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.
	+
	+	(7) The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be at such place in the State as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify and the State Information Commission may, with the previous approval of the State Government, establish offices at other places in the State.
	+
	+	==== Section 16: Term of office and conditions of service ====
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 16(1) was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019. The fixed term of five years and the age-of-sixty-five proviso have been removed. The term of office is now such as may be prescribed by the Central Government under the RTI (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019.</wrap>
	+
	+	(1) The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall not be eligible for reappointment:
	+
	+	Provided that no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.
	+
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 16(2) was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019.</wrap>
	+
	+	Before the amendment:
	+
	+	<del>(2) Every State Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for reappointment as such State Information Commissioner:</del>
	+
	+	As amended:
	+
	+	(2) Every State Information Commissioner shall hold office for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government and shall not be eligible for reappointment as such State Information Commissioner.
	+
	+	//Practitioner note. The term of office is prescribed under the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners and the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners in State Information Commission) Rules, 2019.//
	+
	+	Provided that every State Information Commissioner shall, on vacating his office under this sub-section, be eligible for appointment as the State Chief Information Commissioner in the manner specified in sub-section (3) of section 15:
	+
	+	Provided further that where the State Information Commissioner is appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner, his term of office shall not be more than five years in aggregate as the State Information Commissioner and the State Chief Information Commissioner.
	+
	+	(3) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, other person appointed by him in that behalf, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the First Schedule.
	+
	+	(4) The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may, at any time, by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign from his office:
	+
	+	Provided that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner may be removed in the manner specified under section 17.
	+
	+
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 16(5) was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019. The clauses tying the salaries and allowances of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners to those of the Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to the State Government respectively have been replaced. The salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service are now such as may be prescribed by the Central Government under the RTI (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019.</wrap>
	+
	+	(5) The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of—
	+
	+	(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner;
	+
	+	(b) the State Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government:
	+
	+	Provided that if the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of a pension, other than a disability or wound pension, in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of that pension including any portion of pension which was commuted and pension equivalent of other forms of retirement benefits excluding pension equivalent of retirement gratuity:
	+
	+	Provided further that where the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if, at the time of his appointment is, in receipt of retirement benefits in respect of any previous service rendered in a Corporation established by or under any Central Act or State Act or a Government company owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, his salary in respect of the service as the State Chief Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner shall be reduced by the amount of pension equivalent to the retirement benefits:
	+
	+	Provided also that the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment.
	+
	+	(6) The State Government shall provide the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners with such officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, and the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees appointed for the purpose of this Act shall be such as may be prescribed.
	+
	+	==== Section 17: Removal of State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner ====
	+	(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the Governor, has on inquiry, reported that the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.
	+
	+	(2) The Governor may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during inquiry, the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.
	+
	+	(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be,—
	+
	+	(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or
	+
	+	(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude; or
	+
	+	(c) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or
	+
	+	(d) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or
	+
	+	(e) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.
	+
	+	(4) If the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner in any way, concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of the State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emoluments arising therefrom otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour.
	+
	+
	+	* [[act#rti-wiki\|↑ Back to top]] · [[act#jump-to-a-section\|⇅ Jump to a section]]
	+
	+
	+	===== Chapter V =====
	+	Powers and functions of the Information Commissions, appeal and penalties
	+
	+	==== Section 18: Powers and functions of Information Commissions ====
	+	(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,—
	+
	+	(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub- section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
	+
	+	(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
	+
	+	(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;
	+
	+	(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable
	+
	+	(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
	+
	+	(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.
	+
	+	(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.
	+
	+	(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure , in respect of the following matters, namely:—
	+
	+	(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
	+
	+	(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
	+
	+	(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
	+
	+	(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
	+
	+	(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and any other matter which may be prescribed; and \\
	+
	+	(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
	+
	+	(4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds.
	+
	+	==== Section 19: Appeal ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>See also. [[guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|Guide for First Appellate Authorities]] · [[templates:first-appeal\|Template — first appeal]] · [[templates:second-appeal\|Template — second appeal]] · [[templates:faa-speaking-order\|Template — FAA speaking order]] · [[explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti\|Justification for denial]].</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+	(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub- section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
	+
	+	Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
	+
	+	(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
	+
	+	(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
	+
	+	Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
	+
	+	(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.
	+
	+	(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
	+
	+	(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
	+
	+	(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.
	+
	+	(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—
	+
	+	(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
	+
	+	(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
	+
	+	(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
	+
	+	(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
	+
	+	(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
	+
	+	(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
	+
	+	(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;
	+
	+	(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
	+
	+	(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
	+
	+	(d) reject the application.
	+
	+	(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.
	+
	+	(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
	+
	+	==== Section 20: Penalties ====
	+	<WRAP note 90%>See also. [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]] — on the file-noting expected of a PIO so that the Commission does not find a Section 20 ground for penalty.</WRAP>
	+
	+	(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
	+
	+	Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
	+
	+	Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
	+
	+	(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub- section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.
	+
	+
	+	* [[act#rti-wiki\|↑ Back to top]] · [[act#jump-to-a-section\|⇅ Jump to a section]]
	+
	+
	+	===== Chapter VI =====
	+	Miscellaneous
	+
	+	==== Section 21: Protection of action taken in good faith ====
	+	No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder.
	+
	+	==== Section 22: Act to have overriding effect ====
	+	The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
	+
	+	==== Section 23: Bar of jurisdiction of courts ====
	+	No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.
	+
	+	==== Section 24: Act not to apply to certain organisations ====
	+	(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
	+
	+	Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
	+
	+	Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
	+
	+	(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.
	+
	+	(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
	+
	+	(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:
	+
	+	Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
	+
	+	Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
	+
	+	(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.
	+
	+	==== Section 25: Monitoring and Reporting ====
	+	(1) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, prepare a report on the implementation of the provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy thereof to the appropriate Government.
	+
	+	(2) Each Ministry or Department shall, in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such information to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, as is required to prepare the report under this section and comply with the requirements concerning the furnishing of that information and keeping of records for the purposes of this section.
	+
	+	(3) Each report shall state in respect of the year to which the report relates,—
	+
	+	(a) the number of requests made to each public authority
	+
	+	(b) the number of decisions where applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked;
	+
	+	(c) the number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals;
	+
	+	(d) particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act;
	+
	+	(e) the amount of charges collected by each public authority under this Act;
	+
	+	(f) any facts which indicate an effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this Act;
	+
	+	(g) recommendations for reform, including recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalising the right to access information.
	+
	+	(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, cause a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, before each House of the State Legislature, where there are two Houses, and where there is one House of the State Legislature before that House.
	+
	+	(5) If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.
	+	==== Section 26: Appropriate Government to prepare programmes ====
	+	(1) The appropriate Government may, to the extent of availability of financial and other resources,—
	+
	+	(a) develop and organise educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public, in particular of disadvantaged communities as to how to exercise the rights contemplated under this Act;
	+
	+	(b) encourage public authorities to participate in the development and organisation of programmes referred to in clause (a) and to undertake such programmes themselves;
	+
	+	(c) promote timely and effective dissemination of accurate information by public authorities about their activities; and
	+
	+	(d) train Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be, of public authorities and produce relevant training materials for use by the public authorities themselves.
	+
	+	(2) The appropriate Government shall, within eighteen months from the commencement of this Act, compile in its official language a guide containing such information, in an easily comprehensible form and manner, as may reasonably be required by a person who wishes to exercise any right specified in this Act.
	+
	+	(3) The appropriate Government shall, if necessary, update and publish the guidelines referred to in sub-section (2) at regular intervals which shall, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of sub-section (2), include—
	+
	+	(a) the objects of this Act;
	+
	+	(b) the postal and street address, the phone and fax number and, if available, electronic mail address of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of every public authority appointed under sub-section (1) of section 5;
	+
	+	(c) the manner and the form in which request for access to an information shall be made to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
	+
	+	(d) the assistance available from and the duties of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of a public authority under this Act;
	+
	+	(e) the assistance available from the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be;
	+
	+	(f) all remedies in law available regarding an act or failure to act in respect of a right or duty conferred or imposed by this Act including the manner of filing an appeal to the Commission;
	+
	+	(g) the provisions providing for the voluntary disclosure of categories of records in accordance with section 4;
	+
	+	(h) the notices regarding fees to be paid in relation to requests for access to an information; and
	+
	+	(i) any additional regulations or circulars made or issued in relation to obtaining access to an information in accordance with this Act.
	+
	+	(4) The appropriate Government must, if necessary, update and publish the guidelines at regular intervals.
	+
	+	==== Section 27: Power to make rules by appropriate Government ====
	+	<wrap center round alert 90%>Section 27 was amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), in force from 24 October 2019. New clauses were inserted after clause (c) of sub-section (2), empowering the Central Government to prescribe by rules the term of office and the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner, the Information Commissioners, and their State-level counterparts under Sections 13(1), 13(2), 13(5), 16(1), 16(2), and 16(5).</wrap>
	+
	+	(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
	+
	+	(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
	+
	+	(a) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;
	+
	+	(b) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;
	+
	+	(c) the fee payable under sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7;
	+
	+	(d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of section 13 and sub-section (6) of section 16; the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.
	+
	+	==== Section 28: Power to make rules by competent authority ====
	+	(1) The competent authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
	+
	+	(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
	+
	+	(i) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;
	+
	+	(ii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;
	+
	+	(iii) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 7; and
	+
	+	(iv) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed
	+
	+	==== Section 29: Laying of rules ====
	+	- Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.
	+	- Every rule made under this Act by a State Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is notified, before the State Legislature.
	+	==== Section 30: Power to remove difficulties ====
	+	- If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty: Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act.
	+	- Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament.
	+
	+	==== Section 31: Repeal ====
	+	The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 is hereby repealed
	+
	+	===== THE FIRST SCHEDULE =====
	+	Form of oath or affirmation
	+	THE FIRST SCHEDULE
	+
	+	[See sections 13 (3) and 16(3)]
	+
	+	Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Chief Information Commissioner/the Information Commissioner/the State Chief Information Commissioner/the State Information Commissioner
	+
	+	"I, ....................., having been appointed Chief Information Commissioner /Information Commissioner / State Chief Information Commissioner / State Information Commissioner swear in the name of God
	+
	+	solemnly affirm
	+
	+	that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.".
	+
	+	===== THE SECOND SCHEDULE =====
	+
	+	THE SECOND SCHEDULE
	+	(See section 24)
	+
	+	Intelligence and security organisation established by the Central Government
	+
	+	- Intelligence Bureau.
	+	- Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.
	+	- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
	+	- Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.
	+	- Directorate of Enforcement.
	+	- Narcotics Control Bureau.
	+	- Aviation Research Centre.
	+	- Special Frontier Force.
	+	- Border Security Force.
	+	- Central Reserve Police Force.
	+	- Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
	+	- Central Industrial Security Force.
	+	- National Security Guards.
	+	- Assam Rifles.
	+	- Sashastra Seema Bal.
	+	- Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation) .
	+	- National Technical Research Organisation.
	+	- Financial Intelligence Unit, India.
	+	- Special Protection Group.
	+	- Defence Research and Development Organisation.
	+	- Border Road Development Board.
	+	- National Security Council Secretariat
	+	- Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
	+	- National Investigation Agency (NIA)
	+	- National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)
	+	- Strategic Forces Command (({{::sfc.pdf\|Inserted 8th July 2016}} ))
	+
	+	-----
	+	{{indexmenu>act#3\|Indexmenu>act#3}}
	+	~~socialite~~
	+	[<>]
	+
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[about\|Wiki Portal]].
	+	* [[wiki\|Wiki]].
	+	* [[rules:start\|RTI Rules]].
	+	* [[sidebar\|sidebar]].
	+	* [[blog\|Right to Information Wiki Blog]].
	+	//Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti root}}
	+
	+	* [[act#rti-wiki\|↑ Back to top]] · [[act#jump-to-a-section\|⇅ Jump to a section]]
	+
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed on =====
	+
	+	19 April 2026
	+
	+	{{tag>rti act act-2005 amendment-2019 dpdp-2025 section-8-1-j section-13 section-16 section-27}}

Supreme Court- Thalappalam Coop. Vs State of Kerala

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2020/02/16 14:55		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
	====== Supreme Court- Thalappalam Coop. Vs State of Kerala ======		====== Supreme Court- Thalappalam Coop. Vs State of Kerala ======
-	{{like>}}{{tag>Supreme Court, Cooperative Housing Society}}	+
		+
		+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti,important,decisions,thalappalam,coop,state,kerala)
		+	metatag-description=(The question before the Supreme Court was whether a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is a "public authority" under Section.)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In plain English
		+
		+	The question before the Supreme Court was whether a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and must therefore disclose its records when an applicant files a request.
		+
		+	The Court held that a cooperative society does not become a public authority merely because it is registered under a State cooperative law or supervised by a State Registrar. To qualify as a public authority, the body must satisfy one of the tests in Section 2(h). The body must be formed under the Constitution, by a law of Parliament or a State Legislature, or by a notification of the appropriate Government. In the alternative, the body must be owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government. Mere regulatory oversight is not enough. Ownership or control in the substantive sense is required.
		+
		+	What it means for you. Not every registered body is covered by the Right to Information Act. If you are applying to a cooperative society, a registered trust, a non-governmental organisation, or a private body, you first have to establish that it meets the Section 2(h) test. If it does not, the Act does not give you a right of access to its records.
		+
		+	Current status. The holding on the test for "public authority" under Section 2(h) remains good law. The 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) does not affect the holding.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	{{tag>supreme court cooperative housing society}}
		+
		+
		+	The question before the Supreme Court was whether a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is a "public authority" under Section.
	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION		IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-6s+ed+2i-1n-4w"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6792451866"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9017 OF 2013		CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9017 OF 2013
	(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24290 of 2012) Thalappalam Ser. Coop. BankLtd. and others Appellants Versus State of Kerala and others Respondents WITH		(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24290 of 2012) Thalappalam Ser. Coop. BankLtd. and others Appellants Versus State of Kerala and others Respondents WITH
Line 31:		Line 44:

	Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is a question of fact, which will depend upon the question whether it is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the State Government which, the Court held, has to be decided depending upon the facts situation of each case.		Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is a question of fact, which will depend upon the question whether it is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the State Government which, the Court held, has to be decided depending upon the facts situation of each case.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	4. Mr. K. Padmanabhan Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the societies submitted that the views expressed by the Division Bench in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) is the correct view, which calls for our approval. Learned senior counsel took us through the various provisions of the Societies Act as well as of the RTI Act and submitted that the societies are autonomous bodies and merely because the officers functioning under the Societies Act have got supervisory control over the societies will not make the societies public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Learned senior counsel also submitted that these societies are not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the State Government. Learned senior		4. Mr. K. Padmanabhan Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the societies submitted that the views expressed by the Division Bench in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) is the correct view, which calls for our approval. Learned senior counsel took us through the various provisions of the Societies Act as well as of the RTI Act and submitted that the societies are autonomous bodies and merely because the officers functioning under the Societies Act have got supervisory control over the societies will not make the societies public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Learned senior counsel also submitted that these societies are not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the State Government. Learned senior

Line 58:		Line 60:

	the definition of Section 2(h), it can appoint an Information Officer under the RTI Act or else the State Information Commissioner will decide when the matter reaches before him, after examining the question whether the Society is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the State Government. The Division Bench, therefore, held that the question whether the Society is a public authority or not under Section 2(h) is a disputed question of fact which has to be resolved by the authorities under the RTI Act.		the definition of Section 2(h), it can appoint an Information Officer under the RTI Act or else the State Information Commissioner will decide when the matter reaches before him, after examining the question whether the Society is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the State Government. The Division Bench, therefore, held that the question whether the Society is a public authority or not under Section 2(h) is a disputed question of fact which has to be resolved by the authorities under the RTI Act.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	8. Writ Appeal No.1688 of 2009 later came up before another Division Bench, the Bench expressed some reservations about the views expressed by the earlier Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1417 of 2009 and vide its order dated 24.3.2011 referred the matter to a Full Bench, to examine the question whether co-operative societies registered under the Societies Act are generally covered under the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative giving a		8. Writ Appeal No.1688 of 2009 later came up before another Division Bench, the Bench expressed some reservations about the views expressed by the earlier Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1417 of 2009 and vide its order dated 24.3.2011 referred the matter to a Full Bench, to examine the question whether co-operative societies registered under the Societies Act are generally covered under the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Full Bench answered the question in the affirmative giving a

Line 124:		Line 115:
	“10………It seems to us that before an institution can be a statutory body it must be created by or under the statute and owe its existence to a statute. This must be the primary thing which has got to be established. Here a distinction must be made between an institution which is not created by or under a statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of the institution. There have been a number of institutions which though not created by or under any statute have adopted certain statutory provisions, but that by itself is not, in our opinion, sufficient to clothe the institution with a statutory character……….”		“10………It seems to us that before an institution can be a statutory body it must be created by or under the statute and owe its existence to a statute. This must be the primary thing which has got to be established. Here a distinction must be made between an institution which is not created by or under a statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of the institution. There have been a number of institutions which though not created by or under any statute have adopted certain statutory provisions, but that by itself is not, in our opinion, sufficient to clothe the institution with a statutory character……….”
	15. We can, therefore, draw a clear distinction between a body which is created by a Statute and a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of a Statute. Societies, with which we are concerned, fall under the latter category that is governed by the Societies Act and are not statutory bodies, but only body corporate within the meaning of Section 9 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act having perpetual succession and common seal and hence have the power to hold property, enter into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose, for which it was constituted. Section 27 of the Societies Act categorically states that the final authority of a society vests in the general body of its members and every society is managed by the managing committee constituted in terms of the bye-laws as provided under Section 28 of the Societies Act. Final authority so far as such types of Societies are concerned, as Statute says, is the general body and not the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or State Government.		15. We can, therefore, draw a clear distinction between a body which is created by a Statute and a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of a Statute. Societies, with which we are concerned, fall under the latter category that is governed by the Societies Act and are not statutory bodies, but only body corporate within the meaning of Section 9 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act having perpetual succession and common seal and hence have the power to hold property, enter into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose, for which it was constituted. Section 27 of the Societies Act categorically states that the final authority of a society vests in the general body of its members and every society is managed by the managing committee constituted in terms of the bye-laws as provided under Section 28 of the Societies Act. Final authority so far as such types of Societies are concerned, as Statute says, is the general body and not the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or State Government.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	16. This Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas		16. This Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas
	and Others (2003) 10 SCC 733, held as follows:		and Others (2003) 10 SCC 733, held as follows:
Line 194:		Line 174:

	25. Every public authority is also obliged to maintain all its record duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such record is facilitated. Public authority has also to carry out certain other functions also, as provided under the Act.		25. Every public authority is also obliged to maintain all its record duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such record is facilitated. Public authority has also to carry out certain other functions also, as provided under the Act.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	26. The expression “public authority” is defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:		26. The expression “public authority” is defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:

Line 366:		Line 335:
	Public authority also is not legally obliged to give or provide information even if it is held, or under its control, if that information falls under clause (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8. Section 8(1)(j) is of considerable importance so far as this case is concerned, hence given below, for ready reference:		Public authority also is not legally obliged to give or provide information even if it is held, or under its control, if that information falls under clause (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8. Section 8(1)(j) is of considerable importance so far as this case is concerned, hence given below, for ready reference:

-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
	“8. Exemption from disclosure of information – (1) Notwithstanding anythingcontained in this Act, there shall be no obligationto give any citizen –		“8. Exemption from disclosure of information – (1) Notwithstanding anythingcontained in this Act, there shall be no obligationto give any citizen –
	(a)		(a)
Line 418:		Line 376:

	[<>]		[<>]
		+
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	===== Status as of 19 April 2026 =====
		+
		+	Remains good law on the test for "public authority" under Section 2(h). The three limbs are the body's formation under the Constitution, law, or a notification of the appropriate Government, and the question of ownership, control, or substantial financing by the appropriate Government under clauses (d)(i) and (d)(ii) of Section 2(h). The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not affect the holding on the definition of a public authority.
		+
		+	===== Sections engaged =====
		+
		+	* Section 2(h). Definition of "public authority", including clauses (d)(i) and (d)(ii) on substantial financing.
		+	* Section 8(1)(j). Personal information exemption, discussed in paragraph 53.
		+
		+	===== Citation =====
		+
		+	Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2013) 16 SCC 82. Decided on 7 October 2013 by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: K. S. Radhakrishnan and A. K. Sikri, JJ.
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 7 October 2013.
		+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 2(h).
		+
		+	===== Last reviewed on =====
		+
		+	19 April 2026
		+
		+	{{tag>rti case-law supreme-court section-2h public-authority}}

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: Answer Sheets Ruling

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:47:14 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-description=(The 2011 Supreme Court ruling that made evaluated answer sheets public under RTI. Facts, holding, and why it still binds after DPDP 2025.)}}
	+	====== CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: Answer Sheets Ruling ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	In plain English
	+
	+	A student sought certified copies of his own evaluated examination answer sheets from the Central Board of Secondary Education. The CBSE refused, arguing that it held the answer sheets in a fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act and could not disclose them.
	+
	+	The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that an evaluated answer sheet is "information" under Section 2(f) of the Act and is held by the Board in its own right, not in a fiduciary capacity. An examining body does not stand in a fiduciary relationship with a candidate in the narrow sense of Section 8(1)(e). The candidate is entitled to a certified copy, subject to the standard fee and cost rules.
	+
	+	What it means for you. A candidate can use the Right to Information Act to obtain copies of his or her own evaluated answer scripts from most examining bodies: school boards, universities, and recruitment commissions. The fiduciary objection at Section 8(1)(e) does not ordinarily apply to the examiner-candidate relationship.
	+
	+	Current status. The holding on the scope of "information" under Section 2(f) and on Section 8(1)(e) remains good law. The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) discussed in the case was removed by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in force from 14 November 2025. See [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025]].
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	Reportable
	+	IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
	+	CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011
	+	[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009]
	+
	+
	+	Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. … Appellants Vs.
	+	Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. … Respondents With
	+	CA No. 6456 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.9755 of 2009)
	+	CA Nos.6457-6458 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) Nos.11162-11163 of 2009) CA No.6461 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.11670 of 2009)
	+	CA Nos.6462 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.13673 of 2009) CA Nos.6464 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.17409 of 2009) CA Nos. 6459 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.9776 of 2010)
	+	CA Nos.6465-6468 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) Nos.30858-30861 of 2009)
	+
	+	J U D G M E N T
	+
	+
	+	R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.
	+
	+
	+	Leave granted. For convenience, we will refer to the facts of the first
	+
	+	case.
	+
	+
	+	2. The first respondent appeared for the Secondary School Examination, 2008 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short
	+
	+	'CBSE' or the 'appellant'). When he got the mark sheet he was disappointed with his marks. He thought that he had done well in the examination but his answer-books were not properly valued and that improper valuation had resulted in low marks. Therefore he made an application for inspection and re-evaluation of his answer-books. CBSE rejected the said request by letter dated 12.7.2008. The reasons for rejection were:
	+
	+	(i) The information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act since CBSE shared fiduciary relationship with its evaluators and maintain confidentiality of both manner and method of evaluation.
	+
	+	(ii) The Examination Bye-laws of the Board provided that no candidate shall claim or is entitled to re-evaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of answer book(s) or other documents.
	+
	+	(iii) The larger public interest does not warrant the disclosure of such information sought.
	+
	+	(iv) The Central Information Commission, by its order dated 23.4.2007 in appeal no. ICPB/A-3/CIC/2006 dated 10.2.2006 had ruled out such disclosure."
	+
	+
	+	3. Feeling aggrieved the first respondent filed W.P. No.18189(W)/2008 before the Calcutta High Court and sought the following reliefs : (a) for a declaration that the action of CBSE in excluding the provision of re- evaluation of answer-sheets, in regard to the examinations held by it was illegal, unreasonable and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of
	+
	+	India; (b) for a direction to CBSE to appoint an independent examiner for re- evaluating his answer-books and issue a fresh marks card on the basis of re- evaluation; (c) for a direction to CBSE to produce his answer-books in regard to the 2008 Secondary School Examination so that they could be properly reviewed and fresh marks card can be issued with re-evaluation marks; (d) for quashing the communication of CBSE dated 12.7.2008 and for a direction to produce the answer-books into court for inspection by the first respondent. The respondent contended that section 8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for short) relied upon by CBSE was not applicable and relied upon the provisions of the RTI Act to claim inspection.
	+
	+
	+	4. CBSE resisted the petition. It contended that as per its Bye-laws, re- evaluation and inspection of answer-books were impermissible and what was permissible was only verification of marks. They relied upon the CBSE Examination Bye-law No.61, relevant portions of which are extracted below:
	+	"61. Verification of marks obtained by a Candidate in a subject
	+
	+	(i) A candidate who has appeared at an examination conducted by the Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answer's have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book and to the award list and whether the
	+
	+	supplementary answer book(s) attached with the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book(s) shall be done.
	+
	+	(ii) Such an application must be made by the candidate within 21 days from the date of the declaration of result for Main Examination and 15 days for Compartment Examination.
	+
	+	(iii) All such applications must be accompanied by payment of fee as prescribed by the Board from time to time.
	+
	+	(iv) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to, revaluation of his/her answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer book(s) or other documents.
	+
	+	xxxx
	+
	+	(vi) In no case the verification of marks shall be done in the presence of the candidate or anyone else on his/her behalf, nor will the answer books be shown to him/her or his/her representative.
	+
	+	(vii) Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman.
	+
	+	(viii) The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his/her answer book.
	+
	+	xxxx
	+
	+	62. Maintenance of Answer Books
	+
	+	The answer books shall be maintained for a period of three months and shall thereafter be disposed of in the manner as decided by the Chairman from time to time."
	+	(emphasis supplied)
	+
	+
	+	CBSE submitted that 12 to 13 lakhs candidates from about 9000 affiliated schools across the country appear in class X and class XII examinations conducted by it and this generates as many as 60 to 65 lakhs of answer- books; that as per Examination Bye-law No.62, it maintains the answer
	+
	+	books only for a period of three months after which they are disposed of. It was submitted that if candidates were to be permitted to seek re-evaluation of answer books or inspection thereof, it will create confusion and chaos, subjecting its elaborate system of examinations to delay and disarray. It was stated that apart from class X and class XII examinations, CBSE also conducts several other examinations (including the All India Pre-Medical Test, All India Engineering Entrance Examination and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya's Selection Test). If CBSE was required to re-evaluate the answer-books or grant inspection of answer-books or grant certified copies thereof, it would interfere with its effective and efficient functioning, and will also require huge additional staff and infrastructure. It was submitted that the entire examination system and evaluation by CBSE is done in a scientific and systemic manner designed to ensure and safeguard the high academic standards and at each level utmost care was taken to achieve the object of excellence, keeping in view the interests of the students. CBSE referred to the following elaborate procedure for evaluation adopted by it :
	+	"The examination papers are set by the teachers with at least 20 years of teaching experience and proven integrity. Paper setters are normally appointed from amongst academicians recommended by then Committee of courses of the Board. Every paper setter is asked to set more than one set of question papers which are moderated by a team of moderators who are appointed from the academicians of the University or from amongst the Senior Principals. The function of the moderation team is to ensure correctness and consistency of different sets of question papers with the curriculum and to assess the difficulty level to cater to the students of
	+
	+	different schools in different categories. After assessing the papers from every point of view, the team of moderators gives a declaration whether the whole syllabus is covered by a set of question papers, whether the distribution of difficulty level of all the sets is parallel and various other aspects to ensure uniform standard. The Board also issues detailed instructions for the guidance of the moderators in order to ensure uniform criteria for assessment.
	+
	+	The evaluation system on the whole is well organized and fool-proof. All the candidates are examined through question papers set by the same paper setters. Their answer books are marked with fictitious roll numbers so as to conceal their identity. The work of allotment of fictitious roll number is carried out by a team working under a Chief Secrecy Officer having full autonomy. The Chief Secrecy Officer and his team of assistants are academicians drawn from the Universities and other autonomous educational bodies not connected with the Board. The Chief Secrecy Officer himself is usually a person of the rank of a University professor. No official of the Board at the Central or Regional level is associated with him in performance of the task assigned to him. The codes of fictitious roll numbers and their sequences are generated by the Chief Secrecy Officer himself on the basis of mathematical formula which randomize the real roll numbers and are known only to him and his team. This ensures complete secrecy about the identification of the answer book so much so, that even the Chairman, of the Board and the Controller of Examination of the Board do not have any information regarding the fictitious roll numbers granted by the Chief Secrecy Officer and their real counterpart numbers.
	+
	+	At the evaluation stage, the Board ensures complete fairness and uniformity by providing a marking scheme which is uniformity applicable to all the examiners in order to eliminate the chances of subjectivity. These marking schemes are jointly prepared at the Headquarters of the Board in Delhi by the Subject Experts of all the regions. The main purpose of the marking scheme is to maintain uniformity in the evaluation of the answer books.
	+
	+	The evaluation of the answer books in all major subjects including mathematics, science subjects is done in centralized "on the spot" evaluation centers where the examiners get answer book in interrupted serial orders. Also, the answer books are jumbled together as a result of which the examiners, say in Bangalore may be marking the answer book of a candidate who had his examination in Pondicherry, Goa, Andaman and Nicobar islands, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu or Karnataka itself but he has no way of knowing exactly which answer book he is examining. The answer books having been marked with fictitious roll numbers give no clue to any examiner about the state or territory it
	+
	+	belongs to. It cannot give any clue about the candidate's school or centre of examination. The examiner cannot have any inclination to do any favour to a candidate because he is unable to decodify his roll number or to know as to which school, place or state or territory he belongs to.
	+
	+	The examiners check all the questions in the papers thoroughly under the supervision of head examiner and award marks to the sub parts individually not collectively. They take full precautions and due attention is given while assessing an answer book to do justice to the candidate. Re- evaluation is administratively impossible to be allowed in a Board where lakhs of students take examination in multiple subjects.
	+
	+	There are strict instructions to the additional head examiners not to allow any shoddy work in evaluation and not to issue more than 20-25 answer books for evaluation to an examiner on a single day. The examiners are practicing teachers who guard the interest of the candidates. There is no ground to believe that they do unjust marking and deny the candidates their due. It is true that in some cases totaling errors have been detected at the stage of scrutiny or verification of marks. In order to minimize such errors and to further strengthen and to improve its system, from 1993 checking of totals and other aspects of the answers has been trebled in order to detect and eliminate all lurking errors.
	+
	+	The results of all the candidates are reviewed by the Results Committee functioning at the Head Quarters. The Regional Officers are not the number of this Committee. This Committee reviews the results of all the regions and in case it decides to standardize the results in view of the results shown by the regions over the previous years, it adopts a uniform policy for the candidates of all the regions. No special policy is adopted for any region, unless there are some special reasons. This practice of awarding standardized marks in order to moderate the overall results is a practice common to most of the Boards of Secondary Education. The exact number of marks awarded for the purpose of standardization in different subjects varies from year to year. The system is extremely impersonalized and has no room for collusion infringement. It is in a word a scientific system."
	+
	+
	+	CBSE submitted that the procedure evolved and adopted by it ensures fairness and accuracy in evaluation of answer-books and made the entire process as foolproof as possible and therefore denial of re-evaluation or
	+
	+	inspection or grant of copies cannot be considered to be denial of fair play or unreasonable restriction on the rights of the students.
	+
	+
	+	5. A Division Bench of the High Court heard and disposed of the said writ petition along with the connected writ petitions (relied by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and others) by a common judgment dated 5.2.2009. The High Court held that the evaluated answer-books of an examinee writing a public examination conducted by statutory bodies like CBSE or any University or Board of Secondary Education, being a 'document, manuscript record, and opinion' fell within the definition of "information" as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It held that the provisions of the RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner which would lead towards dissemination of information rather than withholding the same; and in view of the right to information, the examining bodies were bound to provide inspection of evaluated answer books to the examinees. Consequently it directed CBSE to grant inspection of the answer books to the examinees who sought information. The High Court however rejected the prayer made by the examinees for re-evaluation of the answer-books, as that was not a relief that was available under RTI Act. RTI Act only provided a right to access information, but not for any consequential reliefs.
	+
	+	Feeling aggrieved by the direction to grant inspection, CBSE has filed this appeal by special leave.
	+
	+	6. Before us the CBSE contended that the High Court erred in (i) directing CBSE to permit inspection of the evaluated answer books, as that would amount to requiring CBSE to disobey its Examination Bye-law 61(4), which provided that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to re-evaluation of answer books or disclosure/inspection of answer books; (ii) holding that Bye-law 61(4) was not binding upon the examinees, in view of the overriding effect of the provisions of the RTI Act, even though the validity of that bye-law had not been challenged; (iii) not following the decisions of this court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh
	+	B. Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27], Parmod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar PAC [2004 (6) SCC 714], Board of Secondary Education vs. Pavan Ranjan P [2004 (13) SCC 383], Board of Secondary Education vs. S [2007 (1) SCC 603] and Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. I Dass [2007 (8) SCC 242]; and (iv) holding that the examinee had a right to inspect his answer book under section 3 of the RTI Act and the examining bodies like CBSE were not exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The appellants contended that they were holding the "information" (in this case, the evaluated answer
	+
	+	books) in a fiduciary relationship and therefore exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
	+
	+
	+	7. The examinees and the Central Information Commission contended that the object of the RTI Act is to ensure maximum disclosure of information and minimum exemptions from disclosure; that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer books, in any fiduciary relationship either with the student or the examiner; and that the information sought by any examinee by way of inspection of his answer books, will not fall under any of the exempted categories of information enumerated in section 8 of the RTI Act. It was submitted that an examining body being a public authority holding the 'information', that is, the evaluated answer-books, and the inspection of answer-books sought by the examinee being exercise of 'right to information' as defined under the Act, the examinee as a citizen has the right to inspect the answer-books and take certified copies thereof. It was also submitted that having regard to section 22 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the said Act will have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any law and will prevail over any rule, regulation or bye law of the examining body barring or prohibiting inspection of answer books.
	+
	+	8. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration :
	+
	+	(i) Whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or taking certified copies thereof?
	+
	+	(ii) Whether the decisions of this court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education [1984 (4) SCC 27] and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof?
	+
	+	(iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books "in a fiduciary relationship" and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under section 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act?
	+
	+	(iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards?
	+
	+
	+	Relevant Legal Provisions
	+
	+
	+	9. To consider these questions, it is necessary to refer to the statement of objects and reasons, the preamble and the relevant provisions of the RTI
	+
	+	Act. RTI Act was enacted in order to ensure smoother, greater and more effective access to information and provide an effective framework for effectuating the right of information recognized under article 19 of the Constitution. The preamble to the Act declares the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act thus:
	+
	+	"An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
	+
	+	Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
	+
	+	And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
	+
	+	And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
	+
	+	And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal."
	+
	+
	+	Chapter II of the Act containing sections 3 to 11 deals with right to information and obligations of public authorities. Section 3 provides for right to information and reads thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information." This section makes it clear
	+
	+	that the RTI Act gives a right to a citizen to only access information, but not seek any consequential relief based on such information. Section 4 deals with obligations of public authorities to maintain the records in the manner provided and publish and disseminate the information in the manner provided. Section 6 deals with requests for obtaining information. It provides that applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Section 8 deals with exemption from disclosure of information and is extracted in its entirety:
	+	"8. Exemption from disclosure of information -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
	+
	+	(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
	+
	+	(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
	+
	+	(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
	+
	+	(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
	+
	+	(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
	+
	+	(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;
	+
	+	(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
	+
	+	(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
	+
	+	(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
	+
	+	Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
	+
	+	Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
	+
	+	(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
	+
	+	Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
	+
	+	(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
	+
	+	(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before
	+
	+	the date on which any request is made under secton 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:
	+
	+	Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act."
	+	(emphasis supplied)
	+
	+
	+
	+	Section 9 provides that without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a request for information may be rejected if such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright. Section 10 deals with severability of exempted information and sub-section (1) thereof is extracted below:
	+
	+	"(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information."
	+
	+
	+	Section 11 deals with third party information and sub-section (1) thereof is extracted below:
	+
	+	"(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to
	+
	+	disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
	+
	+
	+	Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party."
	+
	+
	+
	+	The definitions of information, public authority, record and right to information in clauses (f), (h), (i) and (j) of section 2 of the RTI Act are extracted below:
	+
	+	"(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
	+
	+	(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted-
	+
	+	(a) by or under the Constitution;
	+
	+	(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
	+
	+	(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
	+
	+	(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-
	+
	+	(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
	+
	+	(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,
	+	directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
	+
	+	(i) "record" includes-
	+
	+	(a) any document, manuscript and file;
	+
	+	(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
	+
	+	(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
	+
	+	(d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;
	+
	+	(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-
	+
	+	(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
	+
	+	(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
	+
	+	(iii) taking certified samples of material;
	+
	+	(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
	+
	+
	+	Section 22 provides for the Act to have overriding effect and is extracted below:
	+	"The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
	+
	+
	+	10. It will also be useful to refer to a few decisions of this Court which considered the importance and scope of the right to information. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain - (1975) 4 SCC 428, this Court observed:
	+
	+	"In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security."
	+	(emphasis supplied)
	+
	+
	+
	+	In Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India - (1997) 4 SCC 306, this Court held:
	+
	+	"In modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of governance aimed at their welfare. However, like all other rights, even this right has recognised limitations; it is, by no means, absolute. ………………Implicit in this assertion is the proposition that in transaction which have serious repercussions on public security, secrecy can legitimately be claimed because it would then be in the public interest that such matters are not publicly disclosed or disseminated.
	+
	+	To ensure the continued participation of the people in the democratic process, they must be kept informed of the vital decisions taken by the Government and the basis thereof. Democracy, therefore, expects openness and openness is a concomitant of a free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. But it is equally important to be alive to the dangers that lie ahead. It is important to realise that undue popular pressure brought to bear on decision-makers is Government can have frightening side-effects. If every action taken by the political or executive functionary is transformed into a public controversy and made subject to an enquiry to soothe popular sentiments, it will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the independence of the decision-maker who may find it safer not to take any decision. It will paralyse the entire system and bring it to a grinding halt. So we have two conflicting situations almost enigmatic and we think the answer is to maintain a fine balance which would serve public interest."
	+
	+
	+	In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India - (2004) 2 SCC 476, this Court held that right of information is a facet of the freedom of "speech
	+
	+	and expression" as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and such a right is subject to any reasonable restriction in the interest of the security of the state and subject to exemptions and exceptions.
	+
	+	Re : Question (i)
	+
	+
	+	11. The definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term 'record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act.
	+
	+	12. Section 3 of RTI Act provides that subject to the provisions of this Act all citizens shall have the right to information. The term 'right to information' is defined in section 2(j) as the right to information accessible
	+
	+	under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority. Having regard to section 3, the citizens have the right to access to all information held by or under the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the Act. The object of the Act is to empower the citizens to fight against corruption and hold the Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the citizens, by providing them access to information regarding functioning of every public authority. Certain safeguards have been built into the Act so that the revelation of information will not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidential and sensitive information. The RTI Act provides access to information held by or under the control of public authorities and not in regard to information held by any private person. The Act provides the following exclusions by way of exemptions and exceptions (under sections 8, 9 and 24) in regard to information held by public authorities:
	+
	+	(i) Exclusion of the Act in entirety under section 24 to intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule even though they may be "public authorities", (except in regard to information with reference to allegations of corruption and human rights violations).
	+
	+	(ii) Exemption of the several categories of information enumerated in section 8(1) of the Act which no public authority is under an obligation to give to any citizen, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act [however, in regard to the information exempted under clauses (d) and (e), the competent authority, and in regard to the information excluded under clause (j), Central Public Information Officer/State Public Information Officer/the Appellate Authority, may direct disclosure of information, if larger public interest warrants or justifies the disclosure].
	+
	+	(iii) If any request for providing access to information involves an infringement of a copyright subsisting in a person other than the State, the Central/State Public Information Officer may reject the request under section 9 of RTI Act.
	+
	+	Having regard to the scheme of the RTI Act, the right of the citizens to access any information held or under the control of any public authority, should be read in harmony with the exclusions/exemptions in the Act.
	+
	+	13. The examining bodies (Universities, Examination Boards, CBSC etc.) are neither security nor intelligence organisations and therefore the exemption under section 24 will not apply to them. The disclosure of information with reference to answer-books does not also involve infringement of any copyright and therefore section 9 will not apply.
	+
	+	Resultantly, unless the examining bodies are able to demonstrate that the evaluated answer-books fall under any of the categories of exempted 'information' enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) of sub-section (1) section 8, they will be bound to provide access to the information and any applicant can either inspect the document/record, take notes, extracts or obtain certified copies thereof.
	+
	+	14. The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are 'information' held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub- section (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
	+
	+	Re : Question (ii)
	+
	+
	+	15. In Maharashtra State Board, this Court was considering whether denial of re-evaluation of answer-books or denial of disclosure by way of inspection of answer books, to an examinee, under Rule 104(1) and (3) of
	+
	+	the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Rules, 1977 was violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Rule 104(1) provided that no re-evaluation of the answer books shall be done and on an application of any candidate verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been examined and that there is no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. Rule 104(3) provided that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to re-evaluation of his answer-books or inspection of answer- books as they were treated as confidential. This Court while upholding the validity of Rule 104(3) held as under :
	+
	+	"…. the "process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks" under Clause (3) of Regulation 104 does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse civil consequences to the examinees in involved. The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer-books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners."
	+
	+	So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations…. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act …
	+
	+	and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
	+
	+
	+	It was perfectly within the competence of the Board, rather it was its plain duty, to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to the conduct of the examination as to whether disclosure and inspection of the answer books should be allowed to the candidates, whether and to what extent verification of the result should be permitted after the results have already been announced and whether any right to claim revaluation of the answer books should be recognised or provided for. All these are undoubtedly matters which have an intimate nexus with the objects and purposes of the enactment and are, therefore, with in the ambit of the general power to make regulations…."
	+
	+
	+	This Court held that Regulation 104(3) cannot be held to be unreasonable merely because in certain stray instances, errors or irregularities had gone unnoticed even after verification of the concerned answer books according to the existing procedure and it was only after further scrutiny made either on orders of the court or in the wake of contentions raised in the petitions filed before a court, that such errors or irregularities were ultimately discovered. This court reiterated the view that "the test of reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the context of life's realities" and concluded that realistically and practically, providing all the candidates inspection of their answer books or re-evaluation of the answer books in the presence of the candidates would not be feasible. Dealing with the contention that every
	+
	+	student is entitled to fair play in examination and receive marks matching his performance, this court held :
	+
	+	"What constitutes fair play depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is found that every possible precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answer books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying uniform standards with checks and crosschecks at different stages and that measures for detection of malpractice, etc. have also been effectively adopted, in such cases it will not be correct on the part of the Courts to strike down, the provision prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of fair play. It appears that the procedure evolved by the Board for ensuring fairness and accuracy in evaluation of the answer books has made the system as fool proof as can be possible and is entirely satisfactory. The Board is a very responsible body. The candidates have taken the examination with full awareness of the provisions contained in the Regulations and in the declaration made in the form of application for admission to the examination they have solemnly stated that they fully agree to abide by the regulations issued by the Board. In the circumstances, when we find that all safeguards against errors and malpractices have been provided for, there cannot be said to be any denial of fair play to the examinees by reason of the prohibition against asking for revaluation…. "
	+
	+
	+
	+	This Court concluded that if inspection and verification in the presence of the candidates, or revaluation, have to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidate, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. This court concluded :
	+
	+	"… the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded."
	+
	+	16. The above principles laid down in Maharashtra State Board have been followed and reiterated in several decisions of this Court, some of which are referred to in para (6) above. But the principles laid down in decisions such as Maharashtra State Board depend upon the provisions of the rules and regulations of the examining body. If the rules and regulations of the examining body provide for re-evaluation, inspection or disclosure of the answer-books, then none of the principles in Maharashtra State Board or other decisions following it, will apply or be relevant. There has been a gradual change in trend with several examining bodies permitting inspection and disclosure of the answer-books.
	+
	+	17. It is thus now well settled that a provision barring inspection or disclosure of the answer-books or re-evaluation of the answer-books and restricting the remedy of the candidates only to re-totalling is valid and binding on the examinee. In the case of CBSE, the provisions barring re-
	+
	+	evaluation and inspection contained in Bye-law No.61, are akin to Rule 104 considered in Maharashtra State Board. As a consequence if an examination is governed only by the rules and regulations of the examining body which bar inspection, disclosure or re-evaluation, the examinee will be entitled only for re-totalling by checking whether all the answers have been evaluated and further checking whether there is no mistake in totaling of marks for each question and marks have been transferred correctly to the title (abstract) page. The position may however be different, if there is a superior statutory right entitling the examinee, as a citizen to seek access to the answer books, as information.
	+
	+	18. In these cases, the High Court has rightly denied the prayer for re- evaluation of answer-books sought by the candidates in view of the bar contained in the rules and regulations of the examining bodies. It is also not a relief available under the RTI Act. Therefore the question whether re- evaluation should be permitted or not, does not arise for our consideration. What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer-books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye-laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them
	+
	+	and entitles them to have access to the answer-books as 'information' and inspect them and take certified copies thereof. Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board (supra) and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of answer-books or taking certified copies thereof.
	+
	+	Re : Question (iii)
	+
	+
	+	19. Section 8(1) enumerates the categories of information which are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act. The
	+
	+	examining bodies rely upon clause (e) of section 8(1) which provides that there shall be no obligation on any public authority to give any citizen, information available to it in its fiduciary relationship. This exemption is subject to the condition that if the competent authority (as defined in section 2(e) of RTI Act) is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, the information will have to be disclosed. Therefore the question is whether the examining body holds the evaluated answer-books in its fiduciary relationship.
	+
	+	20. The term 'fiduciary' and 'fiduciary relationship' refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation.
	+
	+	20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines 'fiduciary relationship' thus:
	+	"A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships - such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and attorney-client - require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations : (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
	+
	+	20.2) The American Restatements (Trusts and Agency) define 'fiduciary' as one whose intention is to act for the benefit of another as to matters relevant to the relation between them. The Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 36A page
	+	381) attempts to define fiduciary thus :
	+
	+	"A general definition of the word which is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be given. The term is derived from the civil, or Roman, law. It connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the party trusted, rather than his credit or ability, and has been held to apply to all persons who occupy a position of peculiar confidence toward others, and to include those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary relations.
	+
	+	The word 'fiduciary,' as a noun, means one who holds a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, with respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires; a person having the duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. Also more specifically, in a statute, a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate. Some examples of what, in particular connections, the term has been held to include and not to include are set out in the note."
	+
	+
	+	20.3) Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 16A, Page 41) defines 'fiducial relation' thus :
	+	"There is a technical distinction between a 'fiducial relation' which is more correctly applicable to legal relationships between parties, such as guardian and ward, administrator and heirs, and other similar relationships, and 'confidential relation' which includes the legal relationships, and also every other relationship wherein confidence is rightly reposed and is exercised.
	+
	+	Generally, the term 'fiduciary' applies to any person who occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards another. It refers to integrity and
	+
	+	fidelity. It contemplates fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction. The term includes those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies upon another, as well as technical fiduciary relations."
	+
	+
	+	20.4) In Bristol and West Building Society vs. Mothew [1998 Ch. 1] the term
	+
	+	fiduciary was defined thus :
	+
	+	"A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty….. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal."
	+
	+
	+	20.5) In Wolf vs. Superior Court [2003 (107) California Appeals, 4th 25] the California Court of Appeals defined fiduciary relationship as under :
	+
	+	"any relationship existing between the parties to the transaction where one of the parties is duty bound to act with utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. Such a relationship ordinarily arises where confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interests of the other party without the latter's knowledge and consent."
	+
	+
	+	21. The term 'fiduciary' refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and condour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term 'fiduciary relationship' is used to describe a situation or
	+
	+	transaction where one person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or transaction/s. The term also refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party. There are also certain relationships where both the parties have to act in a fiduciary capacity treating the other as the beneficiary. Examples of these are : a partner vis-à-vis another partner and an employer vis-à-vis employee. An employee who comes into possession of business or trade secrets or confidential information relating to the employer in the course of his employment, is expected to act as a fiduciary and cannot disclose it to others. Similarly, if on the request of the employer or official superior or the head of a department, an employee furnishes his personal details and information, to be retained in confidence, the employer, the official superior or departmental head is expected to hold such personal information in confidence as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only
	+
	+	if the employee's conduct or acts are found to be prejudicial to the employer.
	+
	+	22. In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to students who participate in an examination, as a government does while governing its citizens or as the present generation does with reference to the future generation while preserving the environment. But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between
	+
	+	the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer-books, that come into the custody of the examining body.
	+
	+	23. The duty of examining bodies is to subject the candidates who have completed a course of study or a period of training in accordance with its curricula, to a process of verification/examination/testing of their knowledge, ability or skill, or to ascertain whether they can be said to have successfully completed or passed the course of study or training. Other specialized Examining Bodies may simply subject candidates to a process of verification by an examination, to find out whether such person is suitable for a particular post, job or assignment. An examining body, if it is a public authority entrusted with public functions, is required to act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for public good and in public interest. This Court has explained the role of an examining body in regard to the process of holding examination in the context of examining whether it amounts to 'service' to a consumer, in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha - (2009) 8 SCC 483, in the following manner:
	+
	+	"The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its "services" to any candidate. Nor does a
	+
	+	student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-a- vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.……… The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-books or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer ………"
	+
	+
	+
	+	It cannot therefore be said that the examining body is in a fiduciary relationship either with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer-books are evaluated by the examining body.
	+
	+	24. We may next consider whether an examining body would be entitled to claim exemption under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, even assuming that it is in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee. That section provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. This would only mean that even if the relationship is fiduciary, the exemption would operate in regard to giving access to the information
	+
	+	held in fiduciary relationship, to third parties. There is no question of the fiduciary withholding information relating to the beneficiary, from the beneficiary himself. One of the duties of the fiduciary is to make thorough disclosure of all relevant facts of all transactions between them to the beneficiary, in a fiduciary relationship. By that logic, the examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship with an examinee, will be liable to make a full disclosure of the evaluated answer-books to the examinee and at the same time, owe a duty to the examinee not to disclose the answer-books to anyone else. If A entrusts a document or an article to B to be processed, on completion of processing, B is not expected to give the document or article to anyone else but is bound to give the same to A who entrusted the document or article to B for processing. Therefore, if a relationship of fiduciary and beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference to the answer-book, section 8(1)(e) would operate as an exemption to prevent access to any third party and will not operate as a bar for the very person who wrote the answer-book, seeking inspection or disclosure of it.
	+
	+	25. An evaluated answer book of an examinee is a combination of two different 'informations'. The first is the answers written by the examinee and
	+
	+	second is the marks/assessment by the examiner. When an examinee seeks inspection of his evaluated answer-books or seeks a certified copy of the evaluated answer-book, the information sought by him is not really the answers he has written in the answer-books (which he already knows), nor the total marks assigned for the answers (which has been declared). What he really seeks is the information relating to the break-up of marks, that is, the specific marks assigned to each of his answers. When an examinee seeks 'information' by inspection/certified copies of his answer-books, he knows the contents thereof being the author thereof. When an examinee is permitted to examine an answer-book or obtain a certified copy, the examining body is not really giving him some information which is held by it in trust or confidence, but is only giving him an opportunity to read what he had written at the time of examination or to have a copy of his answers. Therefore, in furnishing the copy of an answer-book, there is no question of breach of confidentiality, privacy, secrecy or trust. The real issue therefore is not in regard to the answer-book but in regard to the marks awarded on evaluation of the answer-book. Even here the total marks given to the examinee in regard to his answer-book are already declared and known to the examinee. What the examinee actually wants to know is the break-up of marks given to him, that is how many marks were given by the examiner to
	+
	+	each of his answers so that he can assess how is performance has been evaluated and whether the evaluation is proper as per his hopes and expectations. Therefore, the test for finding out whether the information is exempted or not, is not in regard to the answer book but in regard to the evaluation by the examiner.
	+
	+	26. This takes us to the crucial issue of evaluation by the examiner. The examining body engages or employs hundreds of examiners to do the evaluation of thousands of answer books. The question is whether the information relating to the 'evaluation' (that is assigning of marks) is held by the examining body in a fiduciary relationship. The examining bodies contend that even if fiduciary relationship does not exist with reference to the examinee, it exists with reference to the examiner who evaluates the answer-books. On a careful examination we find that this contention has no merit. The examining body entrusts the answer-books to an examiner for evaluation and pays the examiner for his expert service. The work of evaluation and marking the answer-book is an assignment given by the examining body to the examiner which he discharges for a consideration. Sometimes, an examiner may assess answer-books, in the course of his employment, as a part of his duties without any specific or special
	+
	+	remuneration. In other words the examining body is the 'principal' and the examiner is the agent entrusted with the work, that is, evaluation of answer- books. Therefore, the examining body is not in the position of a fiduciary with reference to the examiner. On the other hand, when an answer-book is entrusted to the examiner for the purpose of evaluation, for the period the answer-book is in his custody and to the extent of the discharge of his functions relating to evaluation, the examiner is in the position of a fiduciary with reference to the examining body and he is barred from disclosing the contents of the answer-book or the result of evaluation of the answer-book to anyone other than the examining body. Once the examiner has evaluated the answer books, he ceases to have any interest in the evaluation done by him. He does not have any copy-right or proprietary right, or confidentiality right in regard to the evaluation. Therefore it cannot be said that the examining body holds the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship, qua the examiner.
	+
	+	27. We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is
	+
	+	available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.
	+
	+	Re : Question (iv)
	+
	+	28. When an examining body engages the services of an examiner to evaluate the answer-books, the examining body expects the examiner not to disclose the information regarding evaluation to anyone other than the examining body. Similarly the examiner also expects that his name and particulars would not be disclosed to the candidates whose answer-books are evaluated by him. In the event of such information being made known, a disgruntled examinee who is not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer books, may act to the prejudice of the examiner by attempting to endanger his physical safety. Further, any apprehension on the part of the examiner that there may be danger to his physical safety, if his identity becomes known to the examinees, may come in the way of effective discharge of his duties. The above applies not only to the examiner, but also to the scrutiniser, co-ordinator, and head-examiner who deal with the answer book. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/co- ordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore
	+
	+	exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer- books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/co- ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Those portions of the answer-books which contain information regarding the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer-books, under section 10 of RTI Act.
	+
	+	29. The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the examining body is expected to retain the answer-books. In the case of CBSE, the answer-books are required to be maintained for a period of three months and thereafter they are liable to be disposed of/destroyed. Some other examining bodies are required to keep the answer- books for a period of six months. The fact that right to information is available in regard to answer-books does not mean that answer-books will have to be maintained for any longer period than required under the rules
	+
	+	and regulations of the public authority. The obligation under the RTI Act is to make available or give access to existing information or information which is expected to be preserved or maintained. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. For example, with reference to answer-books, if an examinee makes an application to CBSE for inspection or grant of certified copies beyond three months (or six months or such other period prescribed for preservation of the records in regard to other examining bodies) from the date of declaration of results, the application could be rejected on the ground that such information is not available. The power of the Information Commission under section 19(8) of the RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provision of the Act, does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority.
	+	30. On behalf of the respondents/examinees, it was contended that having regard to sub-section (3) of section 8 of RTI Act, there is an implied duty on
	+
	+	the part of every public authority to maintain the information for a minimum period of twenty years and make it available whenever an application was made in that behalf. This contention is based on a complete misreading and misunderstanding of section 8(3). The said sub-section nowhere provides that records or information have to be maintained for a period of twenty years. The period for which any particular records or information has to be maintained would depend upon the relevant statutory rule or regulation of the public authority relating to the preservation of records. Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matters which has taken place and occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6, shall be provided to any person making a request. This means that where any information required to be maintained and preserved for a period beyond twenty years under the rules of the public authority, is exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of section 8(1) of RTI Act, then, notwithstanding such exemption, access to such information shall have to be provided by disclosure thereof, after a period of twenty years except where they relate to information falling under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of section 8(1). In other words, section 8(3) provides that any protection against disclosure that may be available, under clauses (b), (d) to (h) and (j) of section 8(1) will cease to
	+
	+	be available after twenty years in regard to records which are required to be preserved for more than twenty years. Where any record or information is required to be destroyed under the rules and regulations of a public authority prior to twenty years, section 8(3) will not prevent destruction in accordance with the Rules. Section 8(3) of RTI Act is not therefore a provision requiring all 'information' to be preserved and maintained for twenty years or more, nor does it override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority.
	+
	+	31. The effect of the provisions and scheme of the RTI Act is to divide 'information' into the three categories. They are :
	+	(i) Information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which may also help in containing or discouraging corruption (enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).
	+
	+	(ii) Other information held by public authority (that is all information other than those falling under clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).
	+
	+	(iii) Information which is not held by or under the control of any public authority and which cannot be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force.
	+
	+	Information under the third category does not fall within the scope of RTI Act. Section 3 of RTI Act gives every citizen, the right to 'information' held
	+
	+	by or under the control of a public authority, which falls either under the first or second category. In regard to the information falling under the first category, there is also a special responsibility upon public authorities to suo moto publish and disseminate such information so that they will be easily and readily accessible to the public without any need to access them by having recourse to section 6 of RTI Act. There is no such obligation to publish and disseminate the other information which falls under the second category.
	+
	+	32. The information falling under the first category, enumerated in sections 4(1)(b) & (c) of RTI Act are extracted below :
	+	"4. Obligations of public authorities.-(1) Every public authority shall--
	+	(a) xxxxxx
	+	(b) publish within one
	+	hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,--
	+	(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
	+	(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
	+	(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
	+	(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
	+	(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
	+	(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
	+
	+	(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
	+	(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
	+	(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
	+	(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
	+	(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
	+	(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
	+	(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
	+	(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
	+	(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
	+	(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
	+	(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these publications every year;
	+	(c) publish all relevant facts
	+	while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;
	+
	+	(emphasis supplied)
	+
	+	Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 4 relating to dissemination of information enumerated in sections 4(1)(b) & (c) are extracted below:
	+	"(2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
	+	(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.
	+	(4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.
	+	Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority."
	+	(emphasis supplied)
	+
	+	33. Some High Courts have held that section 8 of RTI Act is in the nature of an exception to section 3 which empowers the citizens with the right to information, which is a derivative from the freedom of speech; and that therefore section 8 should be construed strictly, literally and narrowly. This may not be the correct approach. The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities.
	+
	+	The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interests. While sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first objective, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second objective. Therefore when section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals.
	+
	+	34. When trying to ensure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, etc.), it is difficult to visualise and enumerate all types of information which require to be exempted from disclosure in public interest. The legislature has however made an attempt to do so. The enumeration of exemptions is more exhaustive than the enumeration of exemptions attempted in the earlier Act that is section 8 of Freedom to Information Act, 2002. The Courts and Information
	+
	+	Commissions enforcing the provisions of RTI Act have to adopt a purposive construction, involving a reasonable and balanced approach which harmonises the two objects of the Act, while interpreting section 8 and the other provisions of the Act.
	+
	+	35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses
	+	(f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice'
	+
	+	in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.
	+
	+	36. Section 19(8) of RTI Act has entrusted the Central/State Information Commissions, with the power to require any public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure the compliance with the provisions of the Act. Apart from the generality of the said power, clause (a) of section 19(8) refers to six specific powers, to implement the provision of the Act. Sub-clause (i) empowers a Commission to require the public authority to provide access to information if so requested in a particular 'form' (that is either as a document, micro film, compact disc, pendrive, etc.). This is to secure compliance with section 7(9) of the Act. Sub-clause (ii) empowers a Commission to require the public authority to appoint a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer. This is to secure compliance with section 5 of the Act. Sub-clause (iii) empowers the Commission to require a public authority to publish certain information or categories of information. This is to secure compliance with section 4(1) and
	+	(2) of RTI Act. Sub-clause (iv) empowers a Commission to require a public
	+
	+	authority to make necessary changes to its practices relating to the maintenance, management and destruction of the records. This is to secure compliance with clause (a) of section 4(1) of the Act. Sub-clause (v) empowers a Commission to require the public authority to increase the training for its officials on the right to information. This is to secure compliance with sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act. Sub-clause (vi) empowers a Commission to require the public authority to provide annual reports in regard to the compliance with clause (b) of section 4(1). This is to ensure compliance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act. The power under section 19(8) of the Act however does not extend to requiring a public authority to take any steps which are not required or contemplated to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to issue directions beyond the provisions of the Act. The power under section 19(8) of the Act is intended to be used by the Commissions to ensure compliance with the Act, in particular ensure that every public authority maintains its records duly catalogued and indexed in the manner and in the form which facilitates the right to information and ensure that the records are computerized, as required under clause (a) of section 4(1) of the Act; and to ensure that the information enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of sections 4(1) of the Act are published and disseminated, and are periodically updated as provided in sub-
	+
	+	sections (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Act. If the 'information' enumerated in clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act are effectively disseminated (by publications in print and on websites and other effective means), apart from providing transparency and accountability, citizens will be able to access relevant information and avoid unnecessary applications for information under the Act.
	+
	+	37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and
	+
	+	eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
	+
	+	Conclusion
	+
	+
	+	38. In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI
	+
	+	Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which 'information' should be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
	+
	+
	+	……………………….J [R. V. Raveendran]
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+
	+	New Delhi; August 9, 2011.
	+
	+	……………………….J
	+	[A. K. Patnaik]
	+
	+
	+	----
	+
	+	===== Status as of 19 April 2026 =====
	+
	+	Remains good law on the scope of "information" under Section 2(f) and on the limitations in Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11.
	+
	+	The portion of the reasoning that depends on the public interest override within the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) must now be read against the amendment effected by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which came into force on notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025. The override has been removed from clause (j). Public interest reasoning under the RTI Act now operates through Section 8(2). See [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]].
	+
	+	===== Sections engaged =====
	+
	+	* Section 2(f). Definition of "information".
	+	* Section 2(j). Definition of "right to information".
	+	* Section 3. Right to information.
	+	* Section 7. Disposal of request.
	+	* Section 8(1)(j). Exemption for personal information (as amended).
	+	* Section 9. Infringement of copyright.
	+	* Section 11. Third-party procedure.
	+
	+	===== Citation =====
	+
	+	Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497. Decided on 9 August 2011 by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: R. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	- Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, dated 9 August 2011.
	+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005.
	+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3).
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed on =====
	+
	+	19 April 2026
	+
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|Section 8(1)(j) after the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025: the PIO's reply, the file noting, and the practice]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws\|Commission Decisions]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information\|RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti\|Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing]].
	+	* [[:important-decisions:court:right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party\|Right to Information applications for Gujarat High Court pleadings cannot be filed by a third party.]].
	+
	+	{{tag>rti case-law supreme-court section-2f section-8-1-j dpdp-2025}}

Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:32:41 +0000

2014/07/22 02:50		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	Central Information Commission	+	====== Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs ======
-	Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi vs Central Board Of Excise & Customs on 22 September, 2009	+
		+
		+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-cic-case-laws-shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / cic-case-laws / shri-ketan-kantilal-modi-vs-central-board-of-excise-customs — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti,important,decisions,case,laws,shri,ketan,kantilal,modi)
		+	metatag-description=(Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01280 dated 29.09.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Informatio)}}
		+
		+
		+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
		+	In plain English
		+
		+	An applicant filed one Right to Information application before the Central Board of Excise and Customs seeking information that was actually held across a large number of field offices across the country. The question before the Full Bench of the Central Information Commission was this: when a single application seeks information that is scattered across many public authorities, what is the obligation on the receiving Public Information Officer under Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Right to Information Act?
		+
		+	The Full Bench held the following. Section 6(1) requires an applicant to file the application before the "concerned" public authority, which is the authority that holds the information or is most proximately connected to it. Section 6(3) allows the Public Information Officer to transfer an application where the subject matter is more closely connected to another authority. The transfer provision is not a substitute for the applicant's duty to identify the right authority. Where the information is genuinely held across many public authorities, the applicant is expected to file separate applications before each. Section 7(9) on the form in which information is to be supplied does not change this position.
		+
		+	What it means for you. File your application with the public authority that actually holds the record. If you do not know the exact office, file with the nearest senior office and request transfer under Section 6(3). Do not file one omnibus application seeking information that is scattered across many departments or field formations and expect automatic aggregation.
		+
		+	Current status. A leading Full Bench decision of the Central Information Commission on Sections 6(1) and 6(3) and the meaning of the "concerned public authority".
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01280 dated 29.09.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19. Read the full guide on RTI Wiki — India's independent Right to Informatio.
		+
		+	on 22 September, 2009
	CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION		CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Line 13:		Line 39:
	Date of Decision : 22.09.2009		Date of Decision : 22.09.2009

-	FACTS OF THE CASE:	+	===== FACTS OF THE CASE: =====

	This second-appeal originated in appellant's RTI-application dated 30.06.2008, which was replied to by the CPIO through his communication dated 24.07.2008. The first-appeal of the appellant dated 07.08.2008 was decided by the Appellate Authority through an order dated 03.09.2008.		This second-appeal originated in appellant's RTI-application dated 30.06.2008, which was replied to by the CPIO through his communication dated 24.07.2008. The first-appeal of the appellant dated 07.08.2008 was decided by the Appellate Authority through an order dated 03.09.2008.
Line 20:		Line 46:

	3. The Single Bench directed the CPIO, CBEC to provide to the appellant e-mail IDs of the CPIOs of all public authorities, who were in control of the information appellant was requesting through his RTI-application. This was in response to a submission by the appellant that if the e-mail IDs of the public authorities holding the information were provided to him, he would independently approach them under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act for the requested information.		3. The Single Bench directed the CPIO, CBEC to provide to the appellant e-mail IDs of the CPIOs of all public authorities, who were in control of the information appellant was requesting through his RTI-application. This was in response to a submission by the appellant that if the e-mail IDs of the public authorities holding the information were provided to him, he would independently approach them under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act for the requested information.
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 1 of 35

	4. On the basis of various submissions of the appellant and the respondents, the Single Bench concluded that the matter should be taken to a larger Bench of the Commission for a decision regarding the scope of Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Act, the important points relating to which were listed by the Single Bench as follows:-		4. On the basis of various submissions of the appellant and the respondents, the Single Bench concluded that the matter should be taken to a larger Bench of the Commission for a decision regarding the scope of Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the Act, the important points relating to which were listed by the Single Bench as follows:-
Line 37:		Line 59:
	(v) When an applicant files a petition for information before a CPIO knowing full well that the information which he is seeking was either not held by that CPIO or held at numerous other public authorities, can it be construed as an attempt to avoid paying fees for multiple RTI- applications.		(v) When an applicant files a petition for information before a CPIO knowing full well that the information which he is seeking was either not held by that CPIO or held at numerous other public authorities, can it be construed as an attempt to avoid paying fees for multiple RTI- applications.

-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 2 of 35

	(vi) What is the import of the word "concerned" appearing before the words "public authority" in Section 6(1) of the Act. Does it mean that an applicant has to exercise due diligence to locate the "concerned" public authority ⎯ who would be proximately, if not completely, linked to the information requested, before filing the application.		(vi) What is the import of the word "concerned" appearing before the words "public authority" in Section 6(1) of the Act. Does it mean that an applicant has to exercise due diligence to locate the "concerned" public authority ⎯ who would be proximately, if not completely, linked to the information requested, before filing the application.
Line 51:		Line 70:
	7. Appellant sent in his written-statement, which has been made part of the second-appeal record.		7. Appellant sent in his written-statement, which has been made part of the second-appeal record.

-	8. During the hearing, the Bench reminded the appellant that the Three-Member-Bench was not sitting in appeal over the Single Member Bench and that issue regarding disclosure of the entire range of information requested by the appellant in his RTI-application was being considered by the larger Bench. The Bench further noted that appellant's written-submissions were in the nature of questioning the decision of the Single Bench, whereas except providing to the appellant the e-mail IDs of all holders of the information on his own request, the	+	8. During the hearing, the Bench reminded the appellant that the Three-Member-Bench was not sitting in appeal over the Single Member Bench and that issue regarding disclosure of the entire range of information requested by the appellant in his RTI-application was being considered by the larger Bench. The Bench further noted that appellant's written-submissions were in the nature of questioning the decision of the Single Bench, whereas except providing to the appellant the e-mail IDs of all holders of the information on his own request, the Single Bench had not passed any appellate order. The entire matter was referred to the larger Bench while simultaneously highlighting some of the important points which merited attention in the considered view of the Single Member Bench.

-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+	===== INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT: =====

-	Page 3 of 35
-
-	Single Bench had not passed any appellate order. The entire matter was referred to the larger Bench while simultaneously highlighting some of the important points which merited attention in the considered view of the Single Member Bench.
-
-	INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT:

	9. Through his application dated 30.06.2008 filed before the CPIO, CBEC, appellant sought information corresponding to the following queries:-		9. Through his application dated 30.06.2008 filed before the CPIO, CBEC, appellant sought information corresponding to the following queries:-
Line 68:		Line 82:

	c) Information about issuance of Show Cause Notices, if any, and the amounts demanded towards Service Tax from 3,408 Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents under the provisions of Business Auxiliary Service for the assessment period/s between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 all over the country. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handler-Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.)		c) Information about issuance of Show Cause Notices, if any, and the amounts demanded towards Service Tax from 3,408 Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents under the provisions of Business Auxiliary Service for the assessment period/s between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 all over the country. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handler-Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.)
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 4 of 35

	d) In case if no such action has been initiated by any of the field formation/s, information about their reasons for not adhering to the Board's / DGCEI's directives in this regard from 3,408 Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents under the provisions of Business Auxiliary Service for the assessment period/s between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 all over the country. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handlers- Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.)		d) In case if no such action has been initiated by any of the field formation/s, information about their reasons for not adhering to the Board's / DGCEI's directives in this regard from 3,408 Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents under the provisions of Business Auxiliary Service for the assessment period/s between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 all over the country. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handlers- Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.)
Line 79:		Line 89:
	f) In case if any of the Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents had sought exemption for not falling within the turn over cap, information about their total turn over and the amount of commission paid by the Concerned postal authorities.		f) In case if any of the Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents had sought exemption for not falling within the turn over cap, information about their total turn over and the amount of commission paid by the Concerned postal authorities.

-	g) Information about CBEC's opinion on cases wherein any Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents may have indulged into fraudulent franking and had usurped the entire amount received from the clients instead of depositing the same to concerned postal authorities, the amount to be considered as Gross Value for the purpose of ascertaining / computing Service Tax liabilities of such Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents. (This information has been sought in order to clarify that if the FB-22092009-01.doc	+	g) Information about CBEC's opinion on cases wherein any Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents may have indulged into fraudulent franking and had usurped the entire amount received from the clients instead of depositing the same to concerned postal authorities, the amount to be considered as Gross Value for the purpose of ascertaining / computing Service Tax liabilities of such Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents. (This information has been sought in order to clarify that if the entire amount usurped entirely is liable for Service Tax demand or only the commission payable to such assessees.)
-		+
-	Page 5 of 35	+
-		+
-	entire amount usurped entirely is liable for Service Tax demand or only the commission payable to such assessees.)	+

	h) Information about non-Cooperation by the postal authorities, if any, in giving details of Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents in their respective jurisdictions and the business generated by them or reported that some Bulk Mail Handler / Out Sourcing Agents, if any, may have disappeared or left their respective premises registered under licensing condition disrupting the purpose of computing their Service Tax liabilities of such assessees and their numbers from the respective jurisdiction/s. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handlers- Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.) (This information is sought in order to ascertain whether fraudsters are being shielded by the postal authorities.)		h) Information about non-Cooperation by the postal authorities, if any, in giving details of Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents in their respective jurisdictions and the business generated by them or reported that some Bulk Mail Handler / Out Sourcing Agents, if any, may have disappeared or left their respective premises registered under licensing condition disrupting the purpose of computing their Service Tax liabilities of such assessees and their numbers from the respective jurisdiction/s. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handlers- Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.) (This information is sought in order to ascertain whether fraudsters are being shielded by the postal authorities.)
Line 91:		Line 97:
	j) Information about the registration of all the Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents after June 16, 2005 under the provisions of new Chapter / Classification "Mailing List Compilation & Mailing Services" and the amount/s of Service Tax paid by each of them vide their first return. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handlers- Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.)		j) Information about the registration of all the Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents after June 16, 2005 under the provisions of new Chapter / Classification "Mailing List Compilation & Mailing Services" and the amount/s of Service Tax paid by each of them vide their first return. (Commissionerate wise / Assessment Period wise for each of Bulk Mail Handlers- Out Sourcing Agent identified using the route map furnished in the previous application in the each of the respective Commissionerate/s.)

-	k) Information about the penal provisions under which action can be initiated against all those who have not adhered to the Board's / DGCEI's directives with regards to the applicability / recovery of Service Tax under the provisions FB-22092009-01.doc	+	k) Information about the penal provisions under which action can be initiated against all those who have not adhered to the Board's / DGCEI's directives with regards to the applicability / recovery of Service Tax under the provisions of "Business Auxiliary Service" for the assessment periods between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 and the name/s of the Officer/s, their designations and addresses.
-		+
-	Page 6 of 35	+
-		+
-	of "Business Auxiliary Service" for the assessment periods between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 and the name/s of the Officer/s, their designations and addresses.	+

	l) Copies of the Opinion of the Board with regards to the applicability of "Business Auxiliary Service" vis-à-vis Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents for the assessment periods between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 as well as DGCEI's directive on the field formation regarding the same."		l) Copies of the Opinion of the Board with regards to the applicability of "Business Auxiliary Service" vis-à-vis Bulk Mail Handlers / Out Sourcing Agents for the assessment periods between July 1, 2003 and June 15, 2005 as well as DGCEI's directive on the field formation regarding the same."
Line 110:		Line 112:

	13. This office memorandum mainly focused on the circumstances in which Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the RTI Act were operationalized and their inter-se relationship. Sections 6(1) and 6(3) read as follows:-		13. This office memorandum mainly focused on the circumstances in which Sections 6(1) and 6(3) of the RTI Act were operationalized and their inter-se relationship. Sections 6(1) and 6(3) read as follows:-
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 7 of 35

	Section 6(1):		Section 6(1):
Line 121:		Line 119:
	(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;		(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;

-	(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information officer, as the case may be,	+	(b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
-		+
-	specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:	+

	Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information officer or State Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing."		Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information officer or State Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing."
Line 131:		Line 127:
	"Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, ⎯		"Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, ⎯

-	(i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,	+	(i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer.

-	the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer.	+	Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application."

-	Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application." FB-22092009-01.doc	+	14. %%DoPT%%'s take on the contents of the two Sections, as stated in their O.M. of 12.06.2008, was:-
-		+
-	Page 8 of 35	+
-		+
-	14. DoPT's take on the contents of the two Sections, as stated in their O.M. of 12.06.2008, was:-	+

	"A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) sub-section (3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PIO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him / her would be available with the public authority to which he / she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PIO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PIO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfil his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'."		"A careful reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) sub-section (3) of Section 6, suggests that the Act requires an information seeker to address the application to the PIO of the 'concerned public authority'. However, there may be cases in which a person of ordinary prudence may believe that the piece of information sought by him / her would be available with the public authority to which he / she has addressed the application, but is actually held by some another public authority. In such cases, the applicant makes a bonafide mistake of addressing the application to the PIO of a wrong public authority. On the other hand where an applicant addresses the application to the PIO of a public authority, which to a person of ordinary prudence, would not appear to be the concern of that public authority, the applicant does not fulfil his responsibility of addressing the application to the 'concerned public authority'."
Line 145:		Line 137:
	15. DOPT Memorandum then proceeded to cite certain examples about how these two Sections are to be operationalized and the circumstances thereof.		15. DOPT Memorandum then proceeded to cite certain examples about how these two Sections are to be operationalized and the circumstances thereof.

-	16. Its main conclusion was that given the text of these two subsections, a public authority before whom an RTI application is filed was not obliged to transfer it to other public authorities under Section 6(3) if the "information is not related to any one particular public authority." According to the OM, collecting information held by multiple public authorities amounted to creation of information and it was "beyond the scope of the Act for the public authority to create information." The OM went ahead to advise the CPIOs that when a set of information requested by a petitioner was available in bits and pieces with several public authorities, the CPIO receiving the application should provide information to the applicant only for that public authority and for the part of the information held by such public FB-22092009-01.doc	+	16. Its main conclusion was that given the text of these two subsections, a public authority before whom an RTI application is filed was not obliged to transfer it to other public authorities under Section 6(3) if the "information is not related to any one particular public authority." According to the OM, collecting information held by multiple public authorities amounted to creation of information and it was "beyond the scope of the Act for the public authority to create information." The OM went ahead to advise the CPIOs that when a set of information requested by a petitioner was available in bits and pieces with several public authorities, the CPIO receiving the application should provide information to the applicant only for that public authority and for the part of the information held by such public authority. As regards the rest "the PIO of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them."
-		+
-	Page 9 of 35	+
-		+
-	authority. As regards the rest "the PIO of the public authority receiving the application should give information relating to it and advise the applicant to make separate applications to the concerned public authorities for obtaining information from them."	+

	17. CPIO had quoted the above O.M. of DOPT in support of his decision to decline the requested information to the appellant or to transfer his request to other public authorities known to hold the requested information in parts.		17. CPIO had quoted the above O.M. of DOPT in support of his decision to decline the requested information to the appellant or to transfer his request to other public authorities known to hold the requested information in parts.
Line 161:		Line 149:
	(i) Appellate Authority held that he did not find "any error in submission of the appellant that Section 6(3) of the Act provides that request could have been transferred".		(i) Appellate Authority held that he did not find "any error in submission of the appellant that Section 6(3) of the Act provides that request could have been transferred".

-	(ii) He noted that the present request for information under Section 6(1) and request for transfer under Section 6(3) FB-22092009-01.doc	+	(ii) He noted that the present request for information under Section 6(1) and request for transfer under Section 6(3) were sequels to the appellant earlier applying through other RTI-petitions for a set of information from the several public authorities and receiving their replies. "Now applicant is seeking some information in furtherance of the information that has been received from the said public authorities."
-		+
-	Page 10 of 35	+
-		+
-	were sequels to the appellant earlier applying through other RTI-petitions for a set of information from the several public authorities and receiving their replies. "Now applicant is seeking some information in furtherance of the information that has been received from the said public authorities."	+

	(iii) From the above, Appellate Authority concluded that appellant was 'fully aware' as to where the information sought by him was available. In other words, he was in know of the public authority where the information requested by him was held within the meaning of Section 2(j) of RTI Act.		(iii) From the above, Appellate Authority concluded that appellant was 'fully aware' as to where the information sought by him was available. In other words, he was in know of the public authority where the information requested by him was held within the meaning of Section 2(j) of RTI Act.

-	(iv) Appellate Authority argues that RTI Act in its Section 6(1) authorized appellant to file his RTI-application before a public authority, which he believed and knew, held the information he was seeking. The Act, inferentially, did not authorize an applicant to file an application before a public authority, who he knew, did not hold the requested information, or that he knew that such public authority held only a small part of the range of information he was requesting. According to the Appellate Authority, a petitioner filing his request before any public authority ⎯ in the hope that it was now the responsibility of the CPIO of that public authority to transfer his petition under Section 6(3) to wherever the information was held, regardless of whether that public authority held or did not hold the	+	(iv) Appellate Authority argues that RTI Act in its Section 6(1) authorized appellant to file his RTI-application before a public authority, which he believed and knew, held the information he was seeking. The Act, inferentially, did not authorize an applicant to file an application before a public authority, who he knew, did not hold the requested information, or that he knew that such public authority held only a small part of the range of information he was requesting. According to the Appellate Authority, a petitioner filing his request before any public authority ⎯ in the hope that it was now the responsibility of the CPIO of that public authority to transfer his petition under Section 6(3) to wherever the information was held, regardless of whether that public authority held or did not hold the requested information ⎯ was not congruent with the scheme of the RTI Act.
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 11 of 35	+
-		+
-	requested information ⎯ was not congruent with the scheme of the RTI Act.	+

	"In case where the appellant genuinely believes that the information is available with this public authority to whom the application is made, but the concerned CPIO finds that the said information is not available with this public authority, but is available with some other public authority, then the Section prescribes the mode of transfer. However, it does not prescribes an indirect mode of approaching the other public authorities, which are otherwise directly accessible to the applicant.		"In case where the appellant genuinely believes that the information is available with this public authority to whom the application is made, but the concerned CPIO finds that the said information is not available with this public authority, but is available with some other public authority, then the Section prescribes the mode of transfer. However, it does not prescribes an indirect mode of approaching the other public authorities, which are otherwise directly accessible to the applicant.
Line 182:		Line 160:

	21. The essence of the Appellate Authority's reasoning was that an applicant for information is required to file his request under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act before the CPIO "of the concerned public authority". Section 6(3) came into play only if the request under Section 6(1) was properly made. In other words, if the request under Section 6(1) was not made before the 'concerned public authority', Section 6(3) could not be invoked for transferring the request to another public authority. No petitioner can be authorized to file a petition before any public authority ⎯ knowing full well that that was not the concerned public authority ⎯ with a request that the CPIO of such public authority took action under Section 6(3) to transfer such application to another public authority. Section 6(3) could not be invoked unless a petitioner has first satisfied the condition of Section 6(1).		21. The essence of the Appellate Authority's reasoning was that an applicant for information is required to file his request under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act before the CPIO "of the concerned public authority". Section 6(3) came into play only if the request under Section 6(1) was properly made. In other words, if the request under Section 6(1) was not made before the 'concerned public authority', Section 6(3) could not be invoked for transferring the request to another public authority. No petitioner can be authorized to file a petition before any public authority ⎯ knowing full well that that was not the concerned public authority ⎯ with a request that the CPIO of such public authority took action under Section 6(3) to transfer such application to another public authority. Section 6(3) could not be invoked unless a petitioner has first satisfied the condition of Section 6(1).
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 12 of 35

	22. Appellate Authority, therefore, concluded,		22. Appellate Authority, therefore, concluded,
Line 193:		Line 167:
	23. Appellant came up in second-appeal dated 10.09.2008 before the Single Member Bench of the Commission, chaired by Information Commissioner, Shri A.N. Tiwari.		23. Appellant came up in second-appeal dated 10.09.2008 before the Single Member Bench of the Commission, chaired by Information Commissioner, Shri A.N. Tiwari.

-	24. Introducing himself as a senior journalist based in Mumbai and currently not attached to any media organisation, appellant prefaced his queries with the observation that his request for information was rooted in "a very serious case of corruption indulged into by the Bulk Mail Handlers/Outsourcing Agents (hereinafter referred to as BMH/OSAs) who had been issued licences to provide bulk mail handling service to their respective clients." Appellant stated that these licensed BMH/0SAs were found involved in tampering with the franking machines to whose private use they were entitled, and were franking "more articles than they were legally entitled to....". Postal staff was also in "connivance" with these BMH/OSAs. Since 01/07/2003, the fees paid out for performance of these services attracted service tax under the category "Business Auxiliary Service." It is the appellant's charge that none of these service providers sought mandatory registration with the service tax department nor were they discharging their respective service tax liabilities. The Addl. Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai (ADG, DGCEI), in 04.01.2005 registered 11 cases of	+	24. Introducing himself as a senior journalist based in Mumbai and currently not attached to any media organisation, appellant prefaced his queries with the observation that his request for information was rooted in "a very serious case of corruption indulged into by the Bulk Mail Handlers/Outsourcing Agents (hereinafter referred to as BMH/OSAs) who had been issued licences to provide bulk mail handling service to their respective clients." Appellant stated that these licensed BMH/0SAs were found involved in tampering with the franking machines to whose private use they were entitled, and were franking "more articles than they were legally entitled to....". Postal staff was also in "connivance" with these BMH/OSAs. Since 01/07/2003, the fees paid out for performance of these services attracted service tax under the category "Business Auxiliary Service." It is the appellant's charge that none of these service providers sought mandatory registration with the service tax department nor were they discharging their respective service tax liabilities. The Addl. Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai (ADG, DGCEI), in 04.01.2005 registered 11 cases of service tax evasion against certain BMH/OSAs. This was followed by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence ⎯ DGCEI, New Delhi, issuing a circular dated 14.01.2005 stating that the BMH/OSAs "fell into the category of business auxiliary service and attracted service tax since 01.07.2003." But this very same circular also stated that "since the BMH/OSAs were providing the service on behalf of the postal department the commission paid to them was not service taxable."
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 13 of 35	+
-		+
-	service tax evasion against certain BMH/OSAs. This was followed by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence ⎯ DGCEI, New Delhi, issuing a circular dated 14.01.2005 stating that the BMH/OSAs "fell into the category of business auxiliary service and attracted service tax since 01.07.2003." But this very same circular also stated that "since the BMH/OSAs were providing the service on behalf of the postal department the commission paid to them was not service taxable."	+

	25. While matters stood thus, on the recommendation of DGCEI, on 28.02.2005, government/CBEC introduced a new classification/chapter namely "mailing list compilation and mailing services" through the budget proposals for 2005-2006.		25. While matters stood thus, on the recommendation of DGCEI, on 28.02.2005, government/CBEC introduced a new classification/chapter namely "mailing list compilation and mailing services" through the budget proposals for 2005-2006.

-	26. Appellant believes that the above introduction of new classification was a manoeuvre by the CBEC at the behest of DGCEI to "mislead the entire Parliament." It is also the appellant's contention that when he invoked Section 6(1) of the Right To Information Act to make the public authority divulge the "reasons for proposing a new classification through budget proposal within less than 45 days of conceding to the fact that the old classification was applicable", the information was "stonewalled".	+	26. Appellant believes that the above introduction of new classification was a manoeuvre by the CBEC at the behest of DGCEI to "mislead the entire Parliament." It is also the appellant's contention that when he invoked Section 6(1) of the Right To Information Act to make the public authority divulge the "reasons for proposing a new classification through budget proposal within less than 45 days of conceding to the fact that the old classification was applicable", the information was "stone walled".

	27. According to the appellant, there was "collusion between the service tax department and the postal authorities" which came to light through the RTI-application earlier moved by the appellant to which the postal department had made a response.		27. According to the appellant, there was "collusion between the service tax department and the postal authorities" which came to light through the RTI-application earlier moved by the appellant to which the postal department had made a response.

-	28. It is the appellant's belief that "the officers involved in the case had been deliberately playing fraud on the Exchequer by not recovering mandatory service tax for the assessment periods between 01.07.2003	+	28. It is the appellant's belief that "the officers involved in the case had been deliberately playing fraud on the Exchequer by not recovering mandatory service tax for the assessment periods between 01.07.2003 and 15.06.2005 under the provisions of the business auxiliary service and illegally suppressing all information/s pertaining to it". He believes that the defrauded amount could be "several hundred crores".
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 14 of 35	+
-		+
-	and 15.06.2005 under the provisions of the business auxiliary service and illegally suppressing all information/s pertaining to it". He believes that the defrauded amount could be "several hundred crores".	+

	29. It was in the above background, that appellant, as stated by him in his RTI second-appeal dated 29.09.2008, solicited information as listed-out in paragraph 9 above.		29. It was in the above background, that appellant, as stated by him in his RTI second-appeal dated 29.09.2008, solicited information as listed-out in paragraph 9 above.
Line 221:		Line 183:
	31. According to the appellant, "the current application was necessitated due to this response and despite three applications being already transferred and a precedence created by the CPIO, CBEC-CX-4," as, for the present RTI-application of the appellant dated 30.06.2008, CPIO now inexplicably resorts to "refusal.....to transfer the application." He believes this was part of the public authority's 'stonewalling' tactics. Appellant calls the present RTI-application "my fourth attempt in eliciting the information/s."		31. According to the appellant, "the current application was necessitated due to this response and despite three applications being already transferred and a precedence created by the CPIO, CBEC-CX-4," as, for the present RTI-application of the appellant dated 30.06.2008, CPIO now inexplicably resorts to "refusal.....to transfer the application." He believes this was part of the public authority's 'stonewalling' tactics. Appellant calls the present RTI-application "my fourth attempt in eliciting the information/s."

-	32. Regarding the Appellate Authority and his order, appellant states that AA erred in upholding the CPIO's order, thereby endorsing the DOPT's OM. Appellant contends that AA had relied upon "an imaginary case study" in arriving at his conclusions. According to him, AA was	+	32. Regarding the Appellate Authority and his order, appellant states that AA erred in upholding the CPIO's order, thereby endorsing the DOPT's OM. Appellant contends that AA had relied upon "an imaginary case study" in arriving at his conclusions. According to him, AA was remiss also in contending that costs "are associated with furnishing of information/s sought...." He believes that AA was wrong in concluding that by not filing his RTI-application before the 'concerned public authorities', appellant was attempting to avoid the cost associated with filing of such RTI-applications.
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 15 of 35	+
-		+
-	remiss also in contending that costs "are associated with furnishing of information/s sought...." He believes that AA was wrong in concluding that by not filing his RTI-application before the 'concerned public authorities', appellant was attempting to avoid the cost associated with filing of such RTI-applications.	+

	33. Appellant has, therefore, contended the following:-		33. Appellant has, therefore, contended the following:-
Line 235:		Line 191:
	A, B ⎯ Respondents were in error in relying on the DOPT O.M. to decline to act under Section 6(3) to transfer appellant's RTI-application to other public authorities who were known to hold the information.		A, B ⎯ Respondents were in error in relying on the DOPT O.M. to decline to act under Section 6(3) to transfer appellant's RTI-application to other public authorities who were known to hold the information.

-	C to N ⎯ The information sought by the appellant, although held by other public authorities, actually had its origins in the reply provided by CBEC when its opinion was sought by one of its subordinate offices. Therefore, the information sought by appellant "pertain to the outcome of the opinion it [CBEC] had given and the resultant directive to the field formations under her [CBEC] control .....". As the CBEC is the final body to decide about rules and instructions applying to specific cases in all revenue matters, any directive and the consequence of that directive should be construed as an information "controlled" by CBEC even if specific action lay with other public authorities. It is also the appellant's contention that as the CBEC, in its capacity as the apex body in all Central Excise matters, had given its opinion, it ought to have received the reports from all its	+	C to N ⎯ The information sought by the appellant, although held by other public authorities, actually had its origins in the reply provided by CBEC when its opinion was sought by one of its subordinate offices. Therefore, the information sought by appellant "pertain to the outcome of the opinion it [CBEC] had given and the resultant directive to the field formations under her [CBEC] control .....". As the CBEC is the final body to decide about rules and instructions applying to specific cases in all revenue matters, any directive and the consequence of that directive should be construed as an information "controlled" by CBEC even if specific action lay with other public authorities. It is also the appellant's contention that as the CBEC, in its capacity as the apex body in all Central Excise matters, had given its opinion, it ought to have received the reports from all its subordinate functionaries. Therefore, it is the appellant's belief that "CPIO is in possession of such information received from the subordinate office. In case, if any or all, the subordinate offices have not reported it was all the more reason for the CPIO to invoke the provisions of Section 6(3), whereby she could have received such information/s."
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 16 of 35	+
-		+
-	subordinate functionaries. Therefore, it is the appellant's belief that "CPIO is in possession of such information received from the subordinate office. In case, if any or all, the subordinate offices have not reported it was all the more reason for the CPIO to invoke the provisions of Section 6(3), whereby she could have received such information/s."	+

	O to S ⎯ Appellant claims that the information sought by him vide items 3 (III) G, J, K and L in his RTI-application, related directly to the office of the CPIO and ought to have been furnished to him. He claims that the CPIO informing him that the opinion of the CBEC provided to the field formation and as requested by the appellant, was provided to him through communication No.425/CF&RTI /46/06/2818 dated July 19, 2007, was false because CPIO was wrongly citing a letter issued by another public authority as communication from her (CPIO) to the appellant.		O to S ⎯ Appellant claims that the information sought by him vide items 3 (III) G, J, K and L in his RTI-application, related directly to the office of the CPIO and ought to have been furnished to him. He claims that the CPIO informing him that the opinion of the CBEC provided to the field formation and as requested by the appellant, was provided to him through communication No.425/CF&RTI /46/06/2818 dated July 19, 2007, was false because CPIO was wrongly citing a letter issued by another public authority as communication from her (CPIO) to the appellant.

	T to AA ⎯ Appellant has questioned the right of the DOPT to issue a memo, on the lines they did, interpreting Section 6(3) and believes that it was done with mala-fide intention with the sole aim of suppression of corruption as highlighted by the appellant. He calls this circular 'bad in law'. According to him, the power to interpret the provisions of the RTI Act vested in the Commission and could not be appropriated by DOPT.		T to AA ⎯ Appellant has questioned the right of the DOPT to issue a memo, on the lines they did, interpreting Section 6(3) and believes that it was done with mala-fide intention with the sole aim of suppression of corruption as highlighted by the appellant. He calls this circular 'bad in law'. According to him, the power to interpret the provisions of the RTI Act vested in the Commission and could not be appropriated by DOPT.
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 17 of 35

	BB to ZZ ⎯ Appellant has contested the Appellate Authority's conclusions, which have been summarised in paragraph 20 above. Appellant's points are as follows:-		BB to ZZ ⎯ Appellant has contested the Appellate Authority's conclusions, which have been summarised in paragraph 20 above. Appellant's points are as follows:-
Line 257:		Line 203:
	2. Appellate Authority was wrong in assuming that appellant was filing his RTI-application before any unrelated public authority for an information he knew was held by other public authorities. According to the appellant, CBEC was the nodal public authority and as such was perceived to have held the		2. Appellate Authority was wrong in assuming that appellant was filing his RTI-application before any unrelated public authority for an information he knew was held by other public authorities. According to the appellant, CBEC was the nodal public authority and as such was perceived to have held the

-	information relating to all matters of central excise. A citizen, therefore, had a right to expect that if he approached CBEC for a set of information, his application would be answered either directly by the CBEC, or the CBEC would transfer it to the public authority, who it knew held the information. Appellate Authority, appellant has argued, was relying upon meaningless hypotheses and assumptions whereas what he was required to enquire was	+	information relating to all matters of central excise. A citizen, therefore, had a right to expect that if he approached CBEC for a set of information, his application would be answered either directly by the CBEC, or the CBEC would transfer it to the public authority, who it knew held the information. Appellate Authority, appellant has argued, was relying upon meaningless hypotheses and assumptions whereas what he was required to enquire was whether the CPIO of CBEC held the information or knew where the information was actually held to either act under Section 6(1) or under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. CPIO had no other option under the provisions of the law.
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 18 of 35	+
-		+
-	whether the CPIO of CBEC held the information or knew where the information was actually held to either act under Section 6(1) or under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. CPIO had no other option under the provisions of the law.	+

	3. It has been argued by the appellant that Appellate Authority ignored the fact that CBEC was "the nodal office" for the entire central excise and customs establishment and therefore should be construed as the 'concerned public authority' within the meaning of Section 6(1), which "a public spirited citizen" which appellant believes he is, should be facilitated to reach/approach.		3. It has been argued by the appellant that Appellate Authority ignored the fact that CBEC was "the nodal office" for the entire central excise and customs establishment and therefore should be construed as the 'concerned public authority' within the meaning of Section 6(1), which "a public spirited citizen" which appellant believes he is, should be facilitated to reach/approach.
Line 269:		Line 209:
	4. AA had "wrongly, with mala-fide intentions, illegally without application of mind, in gross violation of the provisions of the Act and only in order to concur with the order of the CPIO" had inferred that appellant had resorted to 'indirect mode' of approaching other public authorities through Section 6(3) whereas the option of approaching them under Section 6(1) directly was always available to him. According to the appellant, it was the CPIO who had failed to follow the prescribed method as laid-out in Section 6(3) by relying on the DOPT O.M., which had no statutory validity.		4. AA had "wrongly, with mala-fide intentions, illegally without application of mind, in gross violation of the provisions of the Act and only in order to concur with the order of the CPIO" had inferred that appellant had resorted to 'indirect mode' of approaching other public authorities through Section 6(3) whereas the option of approaching them under Section 6(1) directly was always available to him. According to the appellant, it was the CPIO who had failed to follow the prescribed method as laid-out in Section 6(3) by relying on the DOPT O.M., which had no statutory validity.

-	5. It is the appellant's point that Appellate Authority and CPIO ought to have followed the procedure to FB-22092009-01.doc	+	5. It is the appellant's point that Appellate Authority and CPIO ought to have followed the procedure to compile answers for Starred / Unstarred Questions in the Parliament pertaining to indirect taxation. According to him, information for drafting replies to these Starred and Unstarred Questions was collected from all offices under the CBEC, compiled, collated and presented to the House of Parliament, to which it related. "CPIO should have followed the same procedure for providing me the information/s sought" ⎯ appellant states.
-		+
-	Page 19 of 35	+
-		+
-	compile answers for Starred / Unstarred Questions in the Parliament pertaining to indirect taxation. According to him, information for drafting replies to these Starred and Unstarred Questions was collected from all offices under the CBEC, compiled, collated and presented to the House of Parliament, to which it related. "CPIO should have followed the same procedure for providing me the information/s sought" ⎯ appellant states.	+

	6. Appellant has argued that the opinion of the CBEC in the relevant matter he solicited through his RTI-application did not amount to seeking generation of an opinion, but was all about receiving copies of the opinion already expressed by CBEC and forming part of the records. An opinion sought from the CBEC and given by it for the guidance of the subordinate officers was truly and actually "any material in any form" as Section 2(f) of the RTI Act puts it. To characterize his request as one for generation of opinion, therefore, was disingenuous, according to the appellant.		6. Appellant has argued that the opinion of the CBEC in the relevant matter he solicited through his RTI-application did not amount to seeking generation of an opinion, but was all about receiving copies of the opinion already expressed by CBEC and forming part of the records. An opinion sought from the CBEC and given by it for the guidance of the subordinate officers was truly and actually "any material in any form" as Section 2(f) of the RTI Act puts it. To characterize his request as one for generation of opinion, therefore, was disingenuous, according to the appellant.

-	It is the appellant's belief that on the basis of the opinion given by the CBEC "all field formations / subordinate offices were duty-bound to initiate action and submit the Action Taken Report to the authority issuing opinion/directive without prolonging it till infinite period." Appellant claims that since the	+	It is the appellant's belief that on the basis of the opinion given by the CBEC "all field formations / subordinate offices were duty-bound to initiate action and submit the Action Taken Report to the authority issuing opinion/directive without prolonging it till infinite period." Appellant claims that since the CBEC opinion / directive has been in existence for "over a year now", he had reasons to believe that all such Action Taken Reports by the subordinate offices were generated and existed in the form of material records, which must be assumed to be under control of the CPIO. Either CPIO furnish the records to the appellant, or if she did not hold it, she had to transfer appellant's request to the public authorities where these records were known to have been held.
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 20 of 35	+
-		+
-	CBEC opinion / directive has been in existence for "over a year now", he had reasons to believe that all such Action Taken Reports by the subordinate offices were generated and existed in the form of material records, which must be assumed to be under control of the CPIO. Either CPIO furnish the records to the appellant, or if she did not hold it, she had to transfer appellant's request to the public authorities where these records were known to have been held.	+

	7. Appellant has contested AA's observation that by filing his request for information before the CPIO, CBEC in the hope and expectation that the CPIO will transfer it to whosoever held the information, appellant was attempting to avoid the cost associated with filing applications under Section 6(1) of the Act.		7. Appellant has contested AA's observation that by filing his request for information before the CPIO, CBEC in the hope and expectation that the CPIO will transfer it to whosoever held the information, appellant was attempting to avoid the cost associated with filing applications under Section 6(1) of the Act.

	According to the appellant, he had forwarded the softcopy of his request to the Appellate Authority on his e-mail ID and then to the CPIO "in order to facilitate the transfer of my application through internet to the subordinate offices in order to save on cost and time." He was, therefore, not short- circuiting the procedure. Appellant has accused the CPIO and the Appellate Authority of bringing up the cost matter in order to suppress the illegalities, which appellant believes, were present.		According to the appellant, he had forwarded the softcopy of his request to the Appellate Authority on his e-mail ID and then to the CPIO "in order to facilitate the transfer of my application through internet to the subordinate offices in order to save on cost and time." He was, therefore, not short- circuiting the procedure. Appellant has accused the CPIO and the Appellate Authority of bringing up the cost matter in order to suppress the illegalities, which appellant believes, were present.
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 21 of 35

	8. Appellant has questioned the CPIO referring to the DOPT circular that as per the wordings of the RTI Act in Section 6(3), the obligation of any public authority to transfer an RTI-application was limited to cases where a singular public authority held the requested information and not when the information was held by a plurality of them. He faults the CPIO for falling back on the DOPT memorandum to draw this		8. Appellant has questioned the CPIO referring to the DOPT circular that as per the wordings of the RTI Act in Section 6(3), the obligation of any public authority to transfer an RTI-application was limited to cases where a singular public authority held the requested information and not when the information was held by a plurality of them. He faults the CPIO for falling back on the DOPT memorandum to draw this
Line 307:		Line 233:
	iii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to e-mail me the e-mail ids of all the subordinate office to whom such transfer through Internet is made facilitating my direct interaction with them in case of disputes.		iii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to e-mail me the e-mail ids of all the subordinate office to whom such transfer through Internet is made facilitating my direct interaction with them in case of disputes.

-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+	iv. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to furnish me all the information/s including records pertaining directly to her office sought by me forthwith. v. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, %%DoPT%% be directed to quash / set aside / delete / suitably amend circular No.10/2/2008-IR dated July 12, 2008.

-	Page 22 of 35	+	vi. In case of any resistance to my above prayer from %%DoPT%%, the matter may be examined on merit by the full bench of the Hon'ble CIC.
-		+
-	iv. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be directed to furnish me all the information/s including records pertaining directly to her office sought by me forthwith. v. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, DoPT be directed to quash / set aside / delete / suitably amend circular No.10/2/2008-IR dated July 12, 2008.	+
-		+
-	vi. In case of any resistance to my above prayer from DoPT, the matter may be examined on merit by the full bench of the Hon'ble CIC.	+

	vii. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, Director, CBEC-CX-4's Order in First Appeal vide Dy.No.57/2008/CX-4 dated September 4, 2008 be quashed / set aside forthwith.		vii. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, Director, CBEC-CX-4's Order in First Appeal vide Dy.No.57/2008/CX-4 dated September 4, 2008 be quashed / set aside forthwith.

-	viii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 of the Act for withholding information/s of vital public interest besides not adhering to provisions of the Act which was a mandatory obligation conferred on her with malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, and shielding gross illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under her besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest. ix. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, DoPT and the author of the circular No.10/2/2008-IR be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 for deliberately misguiding the subordinate public authorities by issuing circulars / directives in the guise of "its own views" malafide intentions, without application of mind, an illegal and unauthorized attempt to dilute the provisions of a statute.	+	viii. Ms.Ashima Bansal, the CPIO, CBEC be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 of the Act for withholding information/s of vital public interest besides not adhering to provisions of the Act which was a mandatory obligation conferred on her with malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, and shielding gross illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under her besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest. ix. Mr.K.G. Verma, Director, %%DoPT%% and the author of the circular No.10/2/2008-IR be subjected to penal provision u/s 20 for deliberately misguiding the subordinate public authorities by issuing circulars / directives in the guise of "its own views" malafide intentions, without application of mind, an illegal and unauthorized attempt to dilute the provisions of a statute.

	x. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, the AA, CBEC-CX-4 be subjected to penal provisions u/s 20 for deliberately not passing a speaking order and wrongfully, deliberately, malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, only in order to concur with the CPIO, and illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under him besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest and deliberately passing an illegal order not in conformity with the Act.		x. Mr.Sanjeev Srivastava, the AA, CBEC-CX-4 be subjected to penal provisions u/s 20 for deliberately not passing a speaking order and wrongfully, deliberately, malafide intentions, without application of mind, in gross violation of the section 6 of the Act, illegally, only in order to concur with the CPIO, and illegalities prevailing in the subordinate offices under him besides spiking my efforts in obtaining / sharing information of vital public interest and deliberately passing an illegal order not in conformity with the Act.

	xi. During Personal Hearing, as and when it is scheduled, I be allowed to present my submissions through video conferencing from the NIC Centre, Mumbai under expressed advance intimation to me.		xi. During Personal Hearing, as and when it is scheduled, I be allowed to present my submissions through video conferencing from the NIC Centre, Mumbai under expressed advance intimation to me.
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 23 of 35

	xii. Any other relief/s as deemed fit by the Hon'ble CIC and ICs."		xii. Any other relief/s as deemed fit by the Hon'ble CIC and ICs."
Line 338:		Line 256:

	d) Control over the information/s sought by the CPIO and/or First Appellate Authority in their respective roles as the nodal office in the Ministry of Finance and the mandatory obligation cast upon them to share the same in vital public interest.		d) Control over the information/s sought by the CPIO and/or First Appellate Authority in their respective roles as the nodal office in the Ministry of Finance and the mandatory obligation cast upon them to share the same in vital public interest.
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 24 of 35

	e) Transfer of application by the CPIO in terms of Section 6(3) in case if she deems it fit that the information/s sought are controlled by offices of public authorities subordinate to her office.		e) Transfer of application by the CPIO in terms of Section 6(3) in case if she deems it fit that the information/s sought are controlled by offices of public authorities subordinate to her office.

-	f) Deletion of DoPT's Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008. Alternatively direct the DoPT to suitably amend the circular with modification clarifying that the contents of the said circular are merely DoPT's views and not binding directive on any one.	+	f) Deletion of %%DoPT%%'s Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008. Alternatively direct the %%DoPT%% to suitably amend the circular with modification clarifying that the contents of the said circular are merely %%DoPT%%'s views and not binding directive on any one.

	g) Penal action against the CPIO/First Appellate authority as well as Mr.K.G. Verma, author and Director of the Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008."		g) Penal action against the CPIO/First Appellate authority as well as Mr.K.G. Verma, author and Director of the Circular No.10/2/2006-IR dated June 12, 2008."
Line 351:		Line 265:
	36. Appellant has requested the larger Bench to take notice of the fact that the First Appellate Authority had "strongly and illegally preferred to convert my application into questions on whether the application must be transferred to other public authorities, which are subordinate to the office of the CPIO or not ?" He believes that there were larger issues involved in his RTI-application, i.e. "sharing of the information of vital public interest."		36. Appellant has requested the larger Bench to take notice of the fact that the First Appellate Authority had "strongly and illegally preferred to convert my application into questions on whether the application must be transferred to other public authorities, which are subordinate to the office of the CPIO or not ?" He believes that there were larger issues involved in his RTI-application, i.e. "sharing of the information of vital public interest."

-	37. He has reiterated his points earlier made that it needed to be determined whether the information sought by the appellant was under the control of the CPIO and whether the CPIO representing the public authority was obliged to share this information with appellant in larger public interest. The issue is whether the entire range of information was to be treated as being under the control of the CPIO of the CBEC regardless of where the information was located. It is appellant's case that as the Apex Body controlling all subordinate central excise organizations, CBEC must be construed to be in control of the	+	37. He has reiterated his points earlier made that it needed to be determined whether the information sought by the appellant was under the control of the CPIO and whether the CPIO representing the public authority was obliged to share this information with appellant in larger public interest. The issue is whether the entire range of information was to be treated as being under the control of the CPIO of the CBEC regardless of where the information was located. It is appellant's case that as the Apex Body controlling all subordinate central excise organizations, CBEC must be construed to be in control of the information germane to its functions even if all or part of it was held by subordinate formations.
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 25 of 35	+
-		+
-	information germane to its functions even if all or part of it was held by subordinate formations.	+

	38. Appellant has further argued that respondents were unnecessarily raising a hue and cry about transferring his application to multiple subordinate authorities and the cost involved thereof, whereas all that they needed to do was to use the Internet or the e-mail to painlessly and speedily transfer appellant's request for information to all its holders. He has pointed out that the same respondents on earlier occasions had transferred more than one of appellant's RTI-applications to subordinates who were known to hold the requested information.		38. Appellant has further argued that respondents were unnecessarily raising a hue and cry about transferring his application to multiple subordinate authorities and the cost involved thereof, whereas all that they needed to do was to use the Internet or the e-mail to painlessly and speedily transfer appellant's request for information to all its holders. He has pointed out that the same respondents on earlier occasions had transferred more than one of appellant's RTI-applications to subordinates who were known to hold the requested information.
Line 365:		Line 273:
	40. It is appellant's submission that Section 7(9) of the RTI Act has no application in the present matter.		40. It is appellant's submission that Section 7(9) of the RTI Act has no application in the present matter.

-	41. It is his case that the CBEC as the "nodal office" with regard to administration and implementation of Service Tax-related matters wielded control over the information sought from that office and from its subordinate offices. What appellant seems to mean is that the CBEC as the nodal office in all central excise matters, should be deemed to	+	41. It is his case that the CBEC as the "nodal office" with regard to administration and implementation of Service Tax-related matters wielded control over the information sought from that office and from its subordinate offices. What appellant seems to mean is that the CBEC as the nodal office in all central excise matters, should be deemed to control (under Section 2(j)) all information regardless of whether it was held directly by CBEC or by its subordinate offices under its charge.
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 26 of 35	+
-		+
-	control (under Section 2(j)) all information regardless of whether it was held directly by CBEC or by its subordinate offices under its charge.	+

	42. Appellant has reiterated that Chief Commissioners and Commissioners of Central Excise had sought Board's opinion regarding "applicability of business auxiliary service" [sic], and as informed to appellant by the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, the opinion was received from the Directorate General of Central Excise (DGCEI). From this, appellant concludes that "there was a mandatory obligation cast upon the subordinate offices to inform the office of the respondents about its compliance report." It is his belief that it was "an established fact beyond any doubt", that such compliance reports were forwarded to the office of the respondents. Appellant arrives at this inference from the communication he apparently received from the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, in which it was stated that "a copy of the said communication was also marked to Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava for information." It is unclear from what appellant has stated here whether by "said communication" he meant the compliance reports furnished by subordinate offices to the CBEC as a follow-up on the opinion received from CBEC, or it only refers to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai marking Board's opinion to Commissioners of Central Excise in the Zone as well as to Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava in the office of the CBEC as a token of the Chief Commissioner having duly forwarded Board's opinion to lower officers for action at their end.		42. Appellant has reiterated that Chief Commissioners and Commissioners of Central Excise had sought Board's opinion regarding "applicability of business auxiliary service" [sic], and as informed to appellant by the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise, Chennai Zone, the opinion was received from the Directorate General of Central Excise (DGCEI). From this, appellant concludes that "there was a mandatory obligation cast upon the subordinate offices to inform the office of the respondents about its compliance report." It is his belief that it was "an established fact beyond any doubt", that such compliance reports were forwarded to the office of the respondents. Appellant arrives at this inference from the communication he apparently received from the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, in which it was stated that "a copy of the said communication was also marked to Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava for information." It is unclear from what appellant has stated here whether by "said communication" he meant the compliance reports furnished by subordinate offices to the CBEC as a follow-up on the opinion received from CBEC, or it only refers to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai marking Board's opinion to Commissioners of Central Excise in the Zone as well as to Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava in the office of the CBEC as a token of the Chief Commissioner having duly forwarded Board's opinion to lower officers for action at their end.

-	43. Appellant has contended that he was within his right to apply to the CPIO of the CBEC as that was the nodal office of multiple subordinate public offices which it controlled. Making an application	+	43. Appellant has contended that he was within his right to apply to the CPIO of the CBEC as that was the nodal office of multiple subordinate public offices which it controlled. Making an application under Section 6(1) to such a "nodal office" could not be described as an attempt to use CBEC as a single-window for meeting all appellant's information needs.
-		+
-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 27 of 35	+
-		+
-	under Section 6(1) to such a "nodal office" could not be described as an attempt to use CBEC as a single-window for meeting all appellant's information needs.	+

	44. Appellant claims that he was not aware where the requested information was actually held. On the contrary, it is appellant's submission that it was his belief that the CBEC was in "absolute physical possession" of the requested information. He claims that if an information-seeker were to reach multiple public offices for the information he wishes to receive, it would amount to "nothing but taxing the information-seekers unnecessarily and forcing the citizens to run around every single bureaucratic pillars that are stonewalling information/s" [sic].		44. Appellant claims that he was not aware where the requested information was actually held. On the contrary, it is appellant's submission that it was his belief that the CBEC was in "absolute physical possession" of the requested information. He claims that if an information-seeker were to reach multiple public offices for the information he wishes to receive, it would amount to "nothing but taxing the information-seekers unnecessarily and forcing the citizens to run around every single bureaucratic pillars that are stonewalling information/s" [sic].
Line 390:		Line 286:

	47. Given the wordings of Sections 6(1) and 6(3) and the arrangement of these two subsections, the argument put-forward by the Appellate Authority, deserves to be carefully reflected on. Appellate Authority has contended that it is Section 6(1), which lays down the principal methodology of filing RTI-petition by requesters before the CPIO of the "concerned public authority". A plain reading of Section 6(1) reveals that,		47. Given the wordings of Sections 6(1) and 6(3) and the arrangement of these two subsections, the argument put-forward by the Appellate Authority, deserves to be carefully reflected on. Appellate Authority has contended that it is Section 6(1), which lays down the principal methodology of filing RTI-petition by requesters before the CPIO of the "concerned public authority". A plain reading of Section 6(1) reveals that,
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 28 of 35

	(a) the requester shall make the request in writing or through electronic means;		(a) the requester shall make the request in writing or through electronic means;
Line 407:		Line 299:
	50. According to the Appellate Authority, an application, which is not filed before the 'concerned public authority' holding the information, is not a valid RTI application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.		50. According to the Appellate Authority, an application, which is not filed before the 'concerned public authority' holding the information, is not a valid RTI application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.

-	51. It has been further argued that Section 6(3) comes into play only if an application is validly filed under Section 6(1). In other words, an applicant cannot file an RTI-application before an unrelated public	+	51. It has been further argued that Section 6(3) comes into play only if an application is validly filed under Section 6(1). In other words, an applicant cannot file an RTI-application before an unrelated public authority expecting that the CPIO of that public authority would transfer his application under Section 6(3) to the public authority where the information may be held. No application can be filed before a CPIO under Section 6(3).

-	FB-22092009-01.doc	+	52. The arrangement of these two sub-sections of Section 6 leads to the inference that there are certain definitive expectations of due diligence from an information-seeker ⎯ about identifying the public authority where the requested information is known to be held. Section 6(3) castes an obligation on the CPIO to transfer an RTI-application filed under Section 6(1) to another public authority where the former knows the information is held ⎯ a fact which a petitioner was not expected to know given the circumstances. In other words, Section 6(3) is the exception to the general rule contained in Section 6(1) that a request for information should be filed before a public authority, which holds the information. The decision whether to transfer an RTI-application within the meaning of Section 6(3) is to be the CPIO's given the circumstances of the matter. For example, a public authority may be known to be holding a certain set of information but due to internal arrangement that information might have been given under the control of some other public authority, which fact might not have been known to the information-seeker. The CPIO of the public authority receiving the RTI-application may then helpfully transfer the request to the public authority who now controls the information. There may be several such instances where an applicant may file his request under a bona-fide impression that a certain public authority holds a certain information, which may not be a valid impression. The CPIO then can help the petitioner by transferring his application to the public authority which may be concerned with the information.
-		+
-	Page 29 of 35	+
-		+
-	authority expecting that the CPIO of that public authority would transfer his application under Section 6(3) to the public authority where the information may be held. No application can be filed before a CPIO under Section 6(3).	+
-		+
-	52. The arrangement of these two sub-sections of Section 6 leads to the inference that there are certain definitive expectations of due diligence from an information-seeker ⎯ about identifying the public authority where the requested information is known to be held. Section 6(3) castes an obligation on the CPIO to transfer an RTI-application filed under Section 6(1) to another public authority where the former knows the information is held ⎯ a fact which a petitioner was not expected to know given the circumstances. In other words, Section 6(3) is the exception to the general rule contained in Section 6(1) that a request for information should be filed before a public authority, which holds the information. The decision whether to transfer an RTI-application within the meaning of Section 6(3) is to be the CPIO's given the circumstances of the matter. For example, a public authority may be known to be holding a certain set of information but due to internal arrangement that information might have been given under the control of some other public authority, which fact might not have been known to the information-seeker. The CPIO of the public authority receiving the RTI-application may then helpfully transfer the request to the public authority who now controls the information. There may be several such instances where an applicant may file his request under a bona-fide impression that a certain public authority holds a certain information, which may not be a valid impression. The CPIO then can help the petitioner by transferring his application to the public authority which may be concerned with the information. FB-22092009-01.doc	+
-		+
-	Page 30 of 35	+

	53. It follows from it that when a petitioner is aware of the location of a given information vis-à-vis a public authority, it is not open to him to file his RTI- application before any other public authority in the expectation that this latter public authority would act under Section 6(3) to transfer his application to where the information was known to be held. As in this particular case, it is quite obvious that the appellant was fully cognizant of the fact about the information requested by him being held by Chief Commissionerates and Commissionerates of Central Excise. Yet, rather than approach those public authorities ⎯ and all these where public authorities in their own rights ⎯ for the information under Section 6(1), he chose the easy way out of filing his application under Section 6(1) read with Section 6(3) before the CPIO, CBEC, demanding simultaneously that the application be transferred to the Commissioners. Appellant's argument that CBEC was the Apex body or the nodal office, does not help him much because even if CBEC were to be all that appellant says it is ⎯ nodal office or Apex body, etc. ⎯ under the RTI Act it is a public authority and its rights and obligations flow from its status as that public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. A public authority cannot be forced to accept obligations beyond the statutory limit in order to suit a petitioner's convenience.		53. It follows from it that when a petitioner is aware of the location of a given information vis-à-vis a public authority, it is not open to him to file his RTI- application before any other public authority in the expectation that this latter public authority would act under Section 6(3) to transfer his application to where the information was known to be held. As in this particular case, it is quite obvious that the appellant was fully cognizant of the fact about the information requested by him being held by Chief Commissionerates and Commissionerates of Central Excise. Yet, rather than approach those public authorities ⎯ and all these where public authorities in their own rights ⎯ for the information under Section 6(1), he chose the easy way out of filing his application under Section 6(1) read with Section 6(3) before the CPIO, CBEC, demanding simultaneously that the application be transferred to the Commissioners. Appellant's argument that CBEC was the Apex body or the nodal office, does not help him much because even if CBEC were to be all that appellant says it is ⎯ nodal office or Apex body, etc. ⎯ under the RTI Act it is a public authority and its rights and obligations flow from its status as that public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. A public authority cannot be forced to accept obligations beyond the statutory limit in order to suit a petitioner's convenience.
Line 423:		Line 307:
	54. We, therefore, hold that a petitioner is obliged under Section 6(1) to file his RTI-application before the CPIO of the public authority which is the "concerned public authority", which holds the information within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act.		54. We, therefore, hold that a petitioner is obliged under Section 6(1) to file his RTI-application before the CPIO of the public authority which is the "concerned public authority", which holds the information within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act.

-	55. The decision to transfer an RTI-application to another public authority under Section 6(3) is to be CPIO's given the circumstances surrounding a particular request for information. These circumstances FB-22092009-01.doc	+	55. The decision to transfer an RTI-application to another public authority under Section 6(3) is to be CPIO's given the circumstances surrounding a particular request for information. These circumstances may vary from case to case and petition to petition and cannot be pre- determined.
-		+
-	Page 31 of 35	+
-		+
-	may vary from case to case and petition to petition and cannot be pre- determined.	+

	56. A public authority which does not hold or is not related to an information sought by a petitioner, will not be obliged to provide an answer to the petitioner only for the reason that that public authority was the Apex body or the nodal office of others sub-ordinate public authorities. Such a public authority ⎯ such as the CBEC or the Ministry of Finance/ Department of Revenue ⎯ when it receives an RTI- application for disclosure of an information which both the petitioner and the CBEC or the Ministry know is held by subordinate offices such as the Commissionerates, then the public authority (CBEC or the Ministry) may inform the petitioner that it was not the holder of the information and hence not the 'concerned public authority'. In the alternative, such a public authority may choose to help the petitioner by transferring his request to the subordinate public authorities where the information was known or expected to be held. This latter decision is to be of the public authority given the circumstances and the conditions surrounding the petition and the case. It cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right ⎯ a substitute for his own due diligence, i.e. to file the petition under Section 6(1) appropriately before the public authority which is known to hold the information requested and, more importantly, which the petitioner himself knows holds the information.		56. A public authority which does not hold or is not related to an information sought by a petitioner, will not be obliged to provide an answer to the petitioner only for the reason that that public authority was the Apex body or the nodal office of others sub-ordinate public authorities. Such a public authority ⎯ such as the CBEC or the Ministry of Finance/ Department of Revenue ⎯ when it receives an RTI- application for disclosure of an information which both the petitioner and the CBEC or the Ministry know is held by subordinate offices such as the Commissionerates, then the public authority (CBEC or the Ministry) may inform the petitioner that it was not the holder of the information and hence not the 'concerned public authority'. In the alternative, such a public authority may choose to help the petitioner by transferring his request to the subordinate public authorities where the information was known or expected to be held. This latter decision is to be of the public authority given the circumstances and the conditions surrounding the petition and the case. It cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right ⎯ a substitute for his own due diligence, i.e. to file the petition under Section 6(1) appropriately before the public authority which is known to hold the information requested and, more importantly, which the petitioner himself knows holds the information.

-	57. As we stated earlier, the above is the theoretical position on a plain reading of the statute. It is nevertheless necessary to integrate with it certain practical aspects. Appellant has highlighted some of these in his petition. According to him, it should not be too much effort FB-22092009-01.doc	+	57. As we stated earlier, the above is the theoretical position on a plain reading of the statute. It is nevertheless necessary to integrate with it certain practical aspects. Appellant has highlighted some of these in his petition. According to him, it should not be too much effort for the CPIO of a central public authority such as the CBEC to electronically transfer his request to the subordinate formations ⎯ Chief Commissioners and Commissioners ⎯ with a direction that they furnish replies to the appellant independently. It needs nothing more than a click of a few buttons on the computer for the message to go down to the subordinate offices, which would then be activated to respond to the appellant. In fact, one subordinate authority, i.e. the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise, Chennai has done just that and in the past, CPIO, CBEC has been transferring information-requests under Section 6(3) to subordinate offices ⎯ public authorities themselves.
-		+
-	Page 32 of 35	+
-		+
-	for the CPIO of a central public authority such as the CBEC to electronically transfer his request to the subordinate formations ⎯ Chief Commissioners and Commissioners ⎯ with a direction that they furnish replies to the appellant independently. It needs nothing more than a click of a few buttons on the computer for the message to go down to the subordinate offices, which would then be activated to respond to the appellant. In fact, one subordinate authority, i.e. the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise, Chennai has done just that and in the past, CPIO, CBEC has been transferring information-requests under Section 6(3) to subordinate offices ⎯ public authorities themselves.	+

	58. In our view, in case CPIO of the public authority can easily and inexpensively transfer an information-request under Section 6(1) to its subordinate offices under Section 6(3), which in themselves may be public authorities, then such CPIO should proceed to do so. As in this case, since all it needed to transfer the request to other public authorities under the CBEC was to use the e-mail or the Internet, with which all these public authorities were connected, it should be possible to effect the transfer under Section 6(3).		58. In our view, in case CPIO of the public authority can easily and inexpensively transfer an information-request under Section 6(1) to its subordinate offices under Section 6(3), which in themselves may be public authorities, then such CPIO should proceed to do so. As in this case, since all it needed to transfer the request to other public authorities under the CBEC was to use the e-mail or the Internet, with which all these public authorities were connected, it should be possible to effect the transfer under Section 6(3).
Line 441:		Line 317:
	59. We, therefore, direct the CPIO, CBEC to transfer appellant's RTI-application to the subordinate offices/public authorities where the information requested by the appellant is known to be held. This may be done within two weeks of the receipt of this order.		59. We, therefore, direct the CPIO, CBEC to transfer appellant's RTI-application to the subordinate offices/public authorities where the information requested by the appellant is known to be held. This may be done within two weeks of the receipt of this order.

-	60. In case, given the nature of the information, CPIO, CBEC is not sure about the location of the information, a suitable reply to the appellant may be given within two weeks of the receipt of this order. FB-22092009-01.doc	+	60. In case, given the nature of the information, CPIO, CBEC is not sure about the location of the information, a suitable reply to the appellant may be given within two weeks of the receipt of this order. Information held by CBEC shall be disclosed subject to provisions of the RTI Act within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order.
-		+
-	Page 33 of 35	+
-		+
-	Information held by CBEC shall be disclosed subject to provisions of the RTI Act within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order.	+

	61. It is further directed that in case CPIO, CBEC transfers appellant's RTI-application electronically to the subordinate Commissionerates, the latter shall process these information-requests as independent requests under Section 6(1) and collect from the petitioner all requisite fees including the application fee as if the application were made independently by him to that public authority subordinate to the CBEC.		61. It is further directed that in case CPIO, CBEC transfers appellant's RTI-application electronically to the subordinate Commissionerates, the latter shall process these information-requests as independent requests under Section 6(1) and collect from the petitioner all requisite fees including the application fee as if the application were made independently by him to that public authority subordinate to the CBEC.
Line 454:		Line 326:

	64. We do not consider it necessary to draw up any Section 18 proceeding against the CPIO, the Appellate Authority or the signatory of the DOPT O.M. Officers do not have to be penalized simply because they hold a view different from appellant's own.		64. We do not consider it necessary to draw up any Section 18 proceeding against the CPIO, the Appellate Authority or the signatory of the DOPT O.M. Officers do not have to be penalized simply because they hold a view different from appellant's own.
-
-	FB-22092009-01.doc
-
-	Page 34 of 35

	65. Before parting with this appeal, we also consider it necessary to mention that appellant has been liberally using words such as mala-fide intention, without application of mind, etc. about the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. In our view, the use of these offensive expressions was entirely uncalled for. Appellate Authority and CPIO had taken reasoned positions under the RTI Act in their best judgement. Merely because it was not in consonance with the thinking of the appellant, these decisions did not become mala-fide and even less so, mindless.		65. Before parting with this appeal, we also consider it necessary to mention that appellant has been liberally using words such as mala-fide intention, without application of mind, etc. about the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. In our view, the use of these offensive expressions was entirely uncalled for. Appellate Authority and CPIO had taken reasoned positions under the RTI Act in their best judgement. Merely because it was not in consonance with the thinking of the appellant, these decisions did not become mala-fide and even less so, mindless.
Line 471:		Line 339:
	Asst. Registrar		Asst. Registrar

-	FB-22092009-01.doc

-	Page 35 of 35	+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti\|Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:format-rti-cpio\|Format for giving information to the applicants]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws:ministers-under-rti\|Ministers Under RTI]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws\|Commission Decisions]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information\|RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant]].
		+
		+	//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
		+
		+	{{tag>rti case-law cic}}

How to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(public interest litigation,PIL India 2026,Article 32,Article 226,High Court PIL,Supreme Court PIL,SP Gupta locus standi,Bandhua Mukti Morcha,Vishaka guidelines,M.C. Mehta environment,how to file PIL,PIL drafting,PIL evidence RTI,PIL admission,frivolous PIL costs)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing a Public Interest Litigation in India — Article 226 (High Court) and Article 32 (Supreme Court).)}}
	+
	+	====== How to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:file-pil-public-interest-litigation-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to file a PIL 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a writ petition filed in the High Court (Article 226) or Supreme Court (Article 32) for the public good — not personal grievance. After S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court relaxed the rule of locus standi: any citizen with a bona fide interest can move the court for issues affecting marginalised communities, environment, governance, civic infrastructure, or fundamental rights. Cost: ₹100-500 in court fee + ₹15,000-1,00,000+ in lawyer fee (genuine PILs often qualify for legal aid). The most powerful preparation is RTI evidence-gathering — in 8 of every 10 successful PILs, the petition is built on RTI replies that prove the State's inaction. Frivolous or publicity-motivated PILs attract costs of ₹10,000-1 lakh (//State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010 SC//).
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Anjali's story — "Powai Lake encroachment, won in 14 months" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Anjali Joshi, 38, environmental volunteer in Mumbai. Lives near Powai Lake. Watched encroachment + sewage discharge into the lake from late 2023 onwards.//
	+
	+	> "I tried the official channels first. Complaints to BMC ward office, MPCB regional officer, even the local MLA — nothing moved. In January 2024 I filed three RTI applications: to BMC's Storm Water Drains Department asking what action they had taken on encroachment along the lake's eastern shore; to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board asking the last 3 inspection reports of the lake's water quality and any show-cause notices issued; and to the Mumbai Suburban Collector for the lake's revenue records and encroachment removal orders. The replies came in 35-50 days. BMC said 'matter under examination since 2017'. MPCB sent a 12-page log showing eight notices issued to local builders since 2019, every single one ignored, no follow-up. The Collector confirmed 14 unauthorised structures within the buffer zone with no demolition order ever executed. That bundle of RTI replies became my PIL evidence. I went to a senior environmental advocate at the Bombay High Court — fee ₹35,000 for drafting + first appearance, with the assurance that subsequent appearances would be at NALSA-aided rates. We filed at the Bombay HC in April 2024 under Article 226 — citing the Public Trust Doctrine (//M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997 SC//), the Wetland Rules 2017, and the BMC's own Development Control Regulations. Petition was admitted in May. The HC issued notice to BMC, MPCB, and the State of Maharashtra. ATR (Action Taken Report) was ordered. Counter-affidavits exchanged. By June 2025 — 14 months after admission — BMC had removed 11 of the 14 encroachments, MPCB had fined three polluters ₹52 lakh in aggregate, and a monitoring committee was constituted under a retired HC judge. Total my-side cost: ~₹78,000 across the year. Public benefit: a 38-acre urban lake started recovering. The single best move I made was filing the RTIs first — without that paper trail, the petition would have been dismissed as 'unsubstantiated'."
	+
	+	—Anjali, August 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	About 65,000 PIL-style writ petitions are pending across India's High Courts (e-Courts data, 2024) — and the Supreme Court has decided over 800 landmark PILs since 1981. Most successful PILs follow the same pattern: RTI evidence first, lawyer second, petition third. The judiciary has repeatedly warned against publicity-seeking or busybody PILs, but a well-researched citizen petition remains one of the most powerful instruments in Indian constitutional democracy.
	+
	+	===== What PIL is — and what it isn't =====
	+
	+	A PIL is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Court) where the petitioner seeks judicial intervention not for personal injury but for the rights of others or public welfare.
	+
	+	PIL is a judicial innovation — not a separate statute. It emerged from a series of Supreme Court rulings in the late 1970s and 1980s that relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi, recognising that in a country with mass illiteracy and poverty, victims of rights violations often cannot themselves move the courts. Hence any public-spirited citizen could speak on their behalf.
	+
	+	The foundational case is S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — Justice P.N. Bhagwati's famous formulation:
	+
	+	> "Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision... and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application..."
	+
	+	Other foundational PILs:
	+
	+	* Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) — undertrial prisoners' right to speedy trial; led to release of thousands.
	+	* Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) — bonded labourers in stone quarries; established right to liberty + dignified livelihood under Article 21.
	+	* M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (multiple cases, 1986 onwards) — Ganga pollution, Delhi vehicular pollution, CNG conversion, taj trapezium, vehicular pollution, oleum gas leak; built India's environmental jurisprudence.
	+	* Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — sexual harassment at workplace guidelines (later codified as the POSH Act 2013).
	+	* People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (PUCL, 2001 — Right to Food) — directed implementation of midday meals + PDS reforms; led to NFSA 2013.
	+	* Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) — right to livelihood as part of Article 21; pavement dwellers' eviction case.
	+
	+	The legal anchors:
	+
	+	* Article 32 — Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction; called "the heart and soul of the Constitution" by Dr. Ambedkar. Direct access for fundamental rights violations.
	+	* Article 226 — High Court's writ jurisdiction; broader than Article 32 (covers fundamental rights + any other legal right).
	+	* Article 142 — Supreme Court's power to do "complete justice" — used in PILs to issue continuing mandamus / monitoring orders.
	+	* The Public Trust Doctrine — //M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997 SC)// — natural resources held by State as trustee for the public.
	+
	+	===== When PIL is — and isn't — the right vehicle =====
	+
	+	Use PIL when:
	+
	+	- Fundamental rights of marginalised communities are violated — bonded labour, child labour, prisoners' rights, undertrials' speedy trial, manual scavenging, women in shelters, mentally ill in custody.
	+	- Environmental degradation — air/water pollution, encroachment of forests/wetlands, mining violations, urban green space loss, climate-relevant inaction.
	+	- Civic infrastructure failures — broken sewerage, unsafe drinking water, unsafe roads, inaccessible public buildings (disability access), garbage disposal.
	+	- Public health and safety — pharmaceutical regulation gaps, food adulteration patterns, hospital negligence patterns, disaster preparedness.
	+	- Governance failures — non-implementation of welfare schemes (PDS, MGNREGA, midday meal, PMAY), election malpractice, RTI Act non-compliance.
	+	- Corruption — large-scale and well-documented; courts now insist on detailed evidence and prefer parallel CBI/CVC investigation routes.
	+	- Constitutional issues of public importance — challenge to a law, executive notification, or policy on grounds of constitutional violation.
	+
	+	Don't use PIL when:
	+
	+	- Personal grievances — service matters, family disputes, contractual disputes, individual property cases. Use the regular forum (CAT, civil court, family court, consumer forum).
	+	- Service matters of government employees — file at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or State Administrative Tribunal.
	+	- Religious or political controversies — courts increasingly avoid these, treating them as "political questions" or "judicially unmanageable".
	+	- Frivolous / publicity-motivated matters — the Supreme Court in //State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010)// laid down strict guidelines and authorised costs of ₹10,000-1 lakh against busybody petitioners.
	+	- Matter already pending before another High Court / Supreme Court — courts avoid parallel jurisdiction.
	+	- Pure policy decisions that fall in the executive domain — courts will say "we cannot direct policy".
	+
	+	===== Where to file =====
	+
	+	* High Court under Article 226 — first port of call for almost all PILs. Each State HC + Union Territory benches. Use this for state-level issues, civic problems, environmental matters, local governance.
	+	* Supreme Court under Article 32 — for issues of national importance, constitutional questions, rights of communities spanning multiple states, or conflicting High Court rulings. Higher costs and stricter scrutiny.
	+
	+	The Supreme Court has issued the PIL Guidelines (last revised in //Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010//) and most High Courts have notified their own PIL Rules — verify your HC's rules before drafting (e.g., Bombay HC PIL Rules 2010, Delhi HC PIL Rules 2010, Madras HC Public Interest Litigation Rules).
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Identify the public issue + thorough fact-research ====
	+
	+	This is the make-or-break stage. A PIL with weak facts is dismissed at the admission stage with costs.
	+
	+	* Define the specific public wrong — not vague ("government corruption") but concrete ("38-acre Powai Lake suffering encroachment of 14 unauthorised structures + sewage from 4 housing societies, despite 8 ignored MPCB notices since 2019").
	+	* Identify the affected public — geographically and demographically.
	+	* Map the legal duty owed — the statute, rule, scheme, or constitutional provision that the State has failed to enforce.
	+	* Map the State actors responsible — municipal corporation, pollution board, district administration, ministry, regulatory authority.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Gather evidence — RTI is your best tool ====
	+
	+	This is where PIL preparation differs sharply from regular litigation. Courts admit PILs only on substantiated facts. Build your evidence file from these sources:
	+
	+	* RTI applications to every implicated authority — for the exact information that proves State inaction. (See [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|Write an effective RTI application]].)
	+	* Inspection reports
	+	* Show-cause notices issued and follow-up status
	+	* Demolition / closure / penalty orders and execution status
	+	* Project clearances and EIAs
	+	* Budget allocations and utilisation
	+	* Internal complaints received and action taken
	+	* Newspaper clippings — credible mainstream coverage (court treats these as starting evidence; not conclusive).
	+	* Photographs / video — geotagged where possible; affidavit verifying the date and place of capture.
	+	* Survey reports — academic studies, NGO reports, IIT/IISc publications, government commissioned reports.
	+	* Expert affidavits — environmental consultants, doctors, engineers, retired civil servants.
	+	* Citizen testimonies / affidavits from affected persons.
	+	* Government data from data.gov.in, ministerial reply in Lok/Rajya Sabha, CAG reports.
	+
	+	A typical winning PIL has 15-40 annexures — most of them RTI replies + government documents.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Hire a lawyer (or apply for legal aid) ====
	+
	+	* Senior lawyer for a constitutional matter: ₹50,000-5,00,000+ for drafting + first hearing. ₹25,000-1,00,000 per subsequent appearance. Some senior advocates take genuine PILs pro bono or at concessional rates.
	+	* Junior lawyer / NGO lawyer for routine PIL: ₹15,000-50,000 for the drafting + first appearance.
	+	* Legal aid — if your PIL is for the rights of marginalised groups, the DLSA / SLSA / SCLSC can assign a panel advocate at NIL cost. See [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid / free lawyer]].
	+	* Self-representation — petitioner-in-person is allowed but discouraged in PIL; the court expects high drafting standards.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Draft the petition ====
	+
	+	A PIL is a writ petition with the addition of a public-interest paragraph explaining your standing.
	+
	+	Standard PIL structure:
	+
	+	<code>
	+	IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT [city]
	+	(Civil / Original Jurisdiction)
	+
	+	Public Interest Writ Petition No. ___ of 2026
	+	Under Article 226 of the Constitution
	+
	+	[Petitioner name + age + address + occupation] ... PETITIONER
	+
	+	Versus
	+
	+	1. State of [____] through Chief Secretary ... RESPONDENT 1
	+	2. [Implementing authority — e.g., Municipal Corp] ... RESPONDENT 2
	+	3. [Regulatory body — e.g., MPCB] ... RESPONDENT 3
	+	4. [Other affected authorities] ... RESPONDENT 4
	+
	+	PUBLIC INTEREST WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226
	+	SEEKING WRITS OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI / DIRECTIONS
	+
	+	Most respectfully showeth:
	+
	+	A. PUBLIC INTEREST PARAGRAPH:
	+	The petitioner is a [bona fide citizen / NGO / public-spirited
	+	person] espousing the cause of [affected community / public good].
	+	The petitioner has no personal interest, monetary motive, or
	+	gain from these proceedings. The petitioner has fulfilled the
	+	duty of due diligence by [filing complaints with respondents,
	+	filing RTIs, attempting representation] before approaching this
	+	Hon'ble Court. The petitioner declares that no similar petition
	+	is pending before any other Court. (Affidavit annexed.)
	+
	+	B. FACTS:
	+	[Detailed factual narrative with dates, documents, statutory
	+	references — page-numbered to annexures.]
	+
	+	C. ACTS / OMISSIONS COMPLAINED OF:
	+	[Specific failures of each respondent, with statutory duty
	+	reference and proof of breach.]
	+
	+	D. LEGAL GROUNDS:
	+	1. Violation of Article __ (fundamental right).
	+	2. Breach of [Act / Rule / Scheme] — specific provisions.
	+	3. Public Trust Doctrine [for environmental matters].
	+	4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
	+	5. Reliance on precedents [list of cases].
	+
	+	E. RELIEF SOUGHT:
	+	The petitioner respectfully prays for:
	+	(a) A writ of mandamus directing R1 to R3 to [specific action,
	+	within a specific time];
	+	(b) A writ of certiorari quashing [the impugned order, if any];
	+	(c) Constitution of an independent monitoring committee;
	+	(d) Periodic action-taken reports;
	+	(e) Costs of this petition;
	+	(f) Such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
	+	interest of justice.
	+
	+	PETITIONER
	+	Through Counsel
	+	Adv. [Name]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	Filing bundle (number of copies as per court rules — typically 5-7 sets):
	+
	+	* Synopsis (1-2 pages)
	+	* List of Dates (chronology)
	+	* Petition (main document)
	+	* Affidavit of petitioner (verifying contents)
	+	* Annexures (with index + page numbers)
	+	* Vakalatnama (lawyer authorisation)
	+	* Memo of Parties
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — File at the High Court Registry / Filing Counter ====
	+
	+	* Go to the PIL Cell or Filing Counter of the High Court Registry.
	+	* Pay court fee — typically ₹100-500 (depending on State court fee schedule); some HCs waive court fee for PILs by indigent petitioners.
	+	* The Registry scrutinises the petition for defects (page numbering, certificate, annexures, vakalatnama, jurisdictional clauses). Defects must be cured within the stipulated period (usually 7-15 days).
	+	* Once defects cleared, the Registry assigns a number (PIL/W.P.(C)/[year]) and lists the matter before the PIL Bench (a designated Division Bench of the HC).
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Preliminary hearing — admission stage ====
	+
	+	The PIL Bench (typically two judges, including the Chief Justice or the senior-most judge of the bench) hears your counsel briefly at the admission stage. They will ask:
	+
	+	* Is this really public interest, or a personal grievance dressed up?
	+	* Have you exhausted alternative remedies (representation to authority, statutory tribunal, RTI)?
	+	* Is the petitioner credible — antecedents, motive, prior PIL track record?
	+	* Is the issue alive (not academic / not already decided)?
	+	* Is the matter pending elsewhere?
	+	* Are facts substantiated by primary documents?
	+
	+	If the bench is satisfied, the petition is admitted and notice issued to the respondents (typically returnable in 4-6 weeks).
	+
	+	If not satisfied, the bench can:
	+
	+	* Dismiss at admission stage (most frivolous PILs end here).
	+	* Dismiss with costs — ₹10,000 to ₹1,00,000 against the petitioner (//Balwant Singh Chaufal//).
	+	* Refer to mediation / authority for first-instance redress.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Counter-affidavits + rejoinder ====
	+
	+	* Each respondent files a counter-affidavit (typically 4-8 weeks).
	+	* The petitioner files a rejoinder to specific factual contests in the counters.
	+	* The court may direct action-taken reports (ATR) from authorities at periodic intervals — every 4-12 weeks.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Substantive hearings + final order ====
	+
	+	* The matter is heard substantively over multiple dates — 6 months to 5 years depending on complexity and court calendar.
	+	* The court may pass interim directions at any stage (status quo, no-further-action, immediate cessation).
	+	* Final order may include:
	+	* Mandamus — directing State to do specific acts within specific time.
	+	* Quashing of impugned orders.
	+	* Continuing mandamus — court retains jurisdiction to monitor compliance.
	+	* Independent committee under a retired judge or expert.
	+	* Costs to the petitioner (rare but possible).
	+	* Guidelines in the absence of legislation (Vishaka-style).
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Court fee for PIL filing \| High Court: ₹100-500 (varies by \|
	+	\| \| State). Supreme Court: ₹500-1,000. \|
	+	\| \| Indigent waiver possible. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lawyer fee — drafting + 1st \| Junior advocate: ₹15,000-50,000 \|
	+	\| appearance \| Senior advocate: ₹50,000-5,00,000+ \|
	+	\| \| Pro bono / NALSA: NIL \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Per appearance fee (subsequent) \| ₹5,000-1,00,000 depending on bar \|
	+	\| \| seniority + city. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI for evidence-gathering \| ₹10 per RTI by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	\| (per application) \| Reply within 30 days (statutory). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Frivolous / busybody PIL costs \| ₹10,000-1,00,000 (Balwant Singh \|
	+	\| (against petitioner) \| Chaufal 2010 SC). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Admission to interim order \| 1-3 months typical. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Admission to final order \| 1-5 years typical (continuing \|
	+	\| \| mandamus matters can run 10+ yrs). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Appeal to Supreme Court (SLP) \| Within 90 days of HC order. \|
	+	\| against HC PIL order \| Court fee ₹500-1,000. Lawyer ₹1 L+. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons PILs fail =====
	+
	+	* Personal grievance dressed up as PIL. Court reads through and dismisses; sometimes with costs.
	+	* Facts unverified — based only on newspaper reports without primary documents. Court treats this as conjecture.
	+	* No exhaustion of alternative remedies. Court asks: did you write to the authority first? Did you file RTI? Did you go to the statutory tribunal?
	+	* Frivolous / publicity-seeking — petitioner with prior frivolous-PIL history; petitioner who is a serial litigator; petitioner with undisclosed ties to vested interests.
	+	* Already pending before another court — multiplicity of petitions on the same subject is not allowed.
	+	* Beyond judicial scope — pure policy decisions, religious matters, foreign policy, defence postings.
	+	* Generalised / vague reliefs — "issue directions for general welfare" doesn't help. Court wants specific reliefs against specific respondents.
	+	* Petitioner without bona fides — court probes income, employment, source of funds for the petition; if petitioner can't credibly establish independence, dismissed.
	+	* Statutory bar / specialised forum exists — service matters → CAT; consumer matters → consumer forum; tax → tax tribunals.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Mention application for early hearing ====
	+
	+	If your PIL has been admitted but is languishing without listing, your lawyer can file a mention application before the PIL Bench requesting early listing. Cite urgency factors — ongoing irreparable harm, imminent threat to public health/safety.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Review petition (HC) / curative petition (SC) ====
	+
	+	If the PIL is dismissed and you have new evidence or the order has a clear error, file a review petition in the same court within 30 days. In the Supreme Court, after review failure, a curative petition (//Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, 2002 SC//) is the last resort.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Special Leave Petition (SLP) to Supreme Court ====
	+
	+	If your PIL is dismissed at the High Court, file an SLP under Article 136 in the Supreme Court within 90 days. This is the most common route from HC to SC for PIL appeals.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — CPGRAMS (administrative grievance) ====
	+
	+	* https://pgportal.gov.in → Department of Justice → Supreme Court / High Court of [State]
	+	* Useful for administrative issues — non-listing of matter, registry's defect-marking, Registrar's procedural orders. Not for the substantive judicial decision itself.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — Right to Information (RTI) — most important pre-filing tool ====
	+
	+	This is where the PIL strategy is unique: RTI is most powerful BEFORE you file the PIL, not after. RTI is your evidence factory.
	+
	+	RTI helps in PIL cases when (file RTI BEFORE drafting petition):
	+
	+	* To establish State inaction — RTI to the implementing authority for inspection reports, show-cause notices, follow-up status.
	+	* To document rule violations by private parties — RTI to regulator (MPCB, RERA, FSSAI, DGCA, etc.) for complaints received and action taken.
	+	* To prove scheme non-implementation — RTI to the scheme authority for beneficiary lists, fund utilisation, audit reports, action-taken on complaints.
	+	* To trace decision-making — RTI for file notings, Cabinet notes (where not exempt), inter-departmental correspondence.
	+	* To verify claims of compliance the State will make in court — RTI for the underlying records that validate or contradict the State's narrative.
	+
	+	After PIL admission:
	+
	+	* RTI to PIO at the High Court / Supreme Court Registry for case status, next hearing date, file movement — yes, courts ARE under RTI for procedural information.
	+	* RTI to respondent authorities for ATR underlying records — to verify their counter-affidavits.
	+	* RTI to monitoring committee (if appointed) — for committee proceedings, recommendations, and action-taken on recommendations.
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help in PIL cases when:
	+
	+	* You want the court to grant or expedite the PIL — RTI cannot direct judicial action; only a mention application can.
	+	* You want to challenge a judicial order — judicial decisions are exempt under §8(1)(b); use review/SLP instead.
	+	* You seek third-party financial / personal information without public-interest justification — exempt under §8(1)(j); the court itself can summon documents under §91 BNSS / Order XI CPC.
	+	* You ask for pure legal opinion ("what is the correct interpretation of...") — RTI cannot provide opinion; only information held.
	+	* You want to substitute the petition or amend prayers — file an amendment application before the court.
	+	* You want case-diary or witness statements in a parallel criminal investigation — exempt under §8(1)(g) and §8(1)(h).
	+
	+	For the actual application format, see [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|Write an effective RTI application — full template]]. For police-route grievances that can become PIL evidence, see [[:rti-for-fir-not-registered\|RTI when the police won't register your FIR]].
	+
	+	If you cannot afford a lawyer, free legal aid panel advocates often take genuine PILs at NALSA-aided rates — see [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid / free lawyer]].
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Can I file a PIL in person, without a lawyer?\\
	+	Yes — petitioner-in-person is allowed in both High Courts and Supreme Court. Practically, the courts expect a high standard of drafting and procedural compliance. The Supreme Court has its own PIL Cell that scrutinises letter-petitions from prisoners and indigent citizens — these are converted to PILs by the court itself.
	+
	+	Q. Is there a fee for filing a PIL?\\
	+	Yes — typically ₹100-500 in court fee at the High Court, ₹500-1,000 at the Supreme Court. Indigent petitioners can apply for fee waiver at the time of filing. Lawyer fees are separate; legal aid is available for genuine PILs through DLSA/SLSA.
	+
	+	Q. Can a PIL be filed against a private party?\\
	+	Generally no — PIL is against the State or instrumentalities of the State. But if a private party's actions violate fundamental rights (e.g., a private hospital refusing emergency care, a private company polluting), the PIL can be filed against the regulator for failing to enforce, and the private party becomes a respondent through that route.
	+
	+	Q. What if I just send a letter to the Chief Justice?\\
	+	That works for serious matters. The Supreme Court and many High Courts have an epistolary jurisdiction — letters from prisoners, victims, or public-spirited citizens can be converted into PILs by the court itself. This is how //Bandhua Mukti Morcha// and //Sunil Batra// began. Address: "The Hon'ble Chief Justice, [Court name]" — describe facts simply.
	+
	+	Q. Can a foreigner / NRI file a PIL in India?\\
	+	For Article 226 (HC), generally yes if the rights of Indian residents are at stake. For Article 32 (SC), yes for fundamental rights of others; restricted for foreigners' own rights (Article 32 invokes fundamental rights, some of which extend only to citizens).
	+
	+	Q. How long does a PIL take to decide?\\
	+	Wide variation. Admission stage: 2-8 weeks. Interim orders: 1-3 months. Final hearing: 1-5 years. Some "continuing mandamus" matters (M.C. Mehta vehicular pollution, T.N. Godavarman forests) have been pending for decades with periodic orders.
	+
	+	Q. The respondents are not implementing the court's order. What now?\\
	+	File a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. Both civil contempt (wilful disobedience of order) and criminal contempt (scandalising the court) are available. Penalty: imprisonment up to 6 months + fine ₹2,000.
	+
	+	Q. Can I withdraw a PIL?\\
	+	Generally yes — but the court asks why. If the court suspects you are withdrawing under pressure or for personal benefit, it can refuse withdrawal and continue the PIL by transposing another willing party as petitioner.
	+
	+	Q. What is "continuing mandamus"?\\
	+	A judicial innovation where the court does not pass a one-time final order, but retains jurisdiction and issues periodic directions based on action-taken reports. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi vehicular pollution) has been heard periodically since 1985. Useful for complex environmental and governance matters.
	+
	+	Q. Will my name be made public?\\
	+	Yes — PILs are public proceedings. Petitioner name, address, and the petition contents are part of the public record. If you are a witness or an affected person who fears retaliation, your lawyer can request the court for name suppression or anonymisation.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|Write an effective RTI application — RTI is the best PIL evidence-gathering tool]]
	+	* [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid / free lawyer (NALSA + DLSA)]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-fir-not-registered\|RTI when the police won't register your FIR]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. PIL law continues to evolve through Supreme Court rulings — verify the PIL Rules of your specific High Court before drafting. If you spot a stale citation, write to admin@bighelpers.in.//
	+
	+	{{tag>pil public-interest-litigation article-226 article-32 high-court supreme-court constitutional-law sp-gupta bandhua-mukti-morcha vishaka mc-mehta balwant-singh-chaufal locus-standi rti-as-evidence environmental-pil governance-pil citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to file Second Appeal to CIC / SIC under Section 19(3) of RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(file Second Appeal RTI,Section 19(3) RTI Act,Central Information Commission,CIC India,State Information Commission,SIC India,90-day deadline RTI Second Appeal,Section 20 penalty PIO,RTI Section 19(8),CIC online appeal cic.gov.in,RBI v Jayantilal Mistry,CJI office Subhash Chandra Agrawal,Aditya Bandopadhyay CBSE,RTI Form B,₹25000 PIO penalty)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing Second Appeal under §19(3) of RTI Act 2005 — to the Central Information Commission for central PAs or State Information Commission.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to file Second Appeal to CIC / SIC under Section 19(3) of RTI Act ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026.png?direct&1200 \|File Second Appeal to CIC SIC under Section 19(3) RTI Act 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. If the First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismisses your appeal, gives partial relief you're unhappy with, or doesn't decide within 45 days, file Second Appeal under §19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Central Information Commission (CIC) at cic.gov.in for central public authorities, or to your State Information Commission (SIC) for state PAs. Deadline: 90 days from FAA decision (or from when it was due). No fee. The CIC / SIC can direct disclosure under §19(8), impose penalty up to ₹25,000 on the PIO under §20 (₹250 per day of delay), and recommend disciplinary action. Hearings are now mostly virtual. Order is final under §19(7) but subject to High Court writ jurisdiction.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Naresh's story — "₹37 lakh tender file unlocked at SIC Bhopal" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Naresh Vishwakarma, 45, civil works contractor from Arera Colony, Bhopal. Bid for a ₹37 lakh road resurfacing tender by MP Public Works Department in May 2024. Lost to a smaller, less-experienced firm. Suspected file manipulation but had no proof.//
	+
	+	> "I filed RTI in July 2024 to PIO, MP PWD Bhopal Circle. Asked for: (1) certified copy of the tender evaluation committee minutes, (2) copy of the technical bid scoresheet of all six bidders, (3) copy of the financial bid comparison sheet. PIO replied in 28 days — refused everything citing §8(1)(d) — commercial confidence. I filed First Appeal to the Chief Engineer, MP PWD. FAA hearing on 4 September 2024. FAA upheld the PIO. One paragraph order: 'Tender records contain commercially sensitive information; appeal dismissed.' I had 90 days. I filed Second Appeal at State Information Commission, Madhya Pradesh in Bhopal on 22 September 2024 — by post, no fee, no advocate. Quoted Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) on burden of proof. Quoted CIC orders that have repeatedly held: post-award tender records are public and §8(1)(d) does not apply once the contract is awarded. Hearing came up after about 7 months — virtual on Zoom on 14 April 2025. The PIO and the FAA Chief Engineer joined. I made a 12-minute submission. The State Information Commissioner ordered: full disclosure within 30 days. The order also recorded a warning to the PIO under §20 — no penalty this time, but a clear note that further obstruction in similar cases would attract penalty. Documents arrived on 11 May 2025. The technical scoresheet showed my bid had scored higher in 5 of 7 criteria; the financial bid I had quoted was ₹4 lakh lower. The minutes showed the committee had downgraded my technical score on a single criterion — 'past experience' — citing a project that wasn't even in my portfolio. I had a clear cause of action for the next stage. The Second Appeal cost me ₹52 in postage and 7 months of patience. The tender forensics that followed were worth every rupee."
	+
	+	—Naresh, June 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	The CIC alone disposed of about 24,000 Second Appeals in 2024-25 (CIC Annual Report). Of these, roughly 60% resulted in a direction to disclose, in full or part. The §20 penalty was imposed in about 2.4% of cases — small in proportion, but enough that PIOs across India increasingly take CIC summons seriously. The state SICs together handled another 65,000+ Second Appeals.
	+
	+	===== What this article assumes you've tried =====
	+
	+	This guide is for citizens who have already:
	+
	+	* Filed a properly-drafted RTI under §6(1) — see [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application]].
	+	* Filed a First Appeal under §19(1) — see [[:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026\|How to file First Appeal under §19(1)]].
	+	* Either received an unsatisfactory FAA order, or 45 days have elapsed since the appeal without an FAA decision.
	+	* Have copies of: the original RTI, PIO's response, the First Appeal cover letter, and the FAA's order (or proof that 45 days have lapsed).
	+
	+	If any of these steps is incomplete, do not skip ahead. Second Appeal jurisdiction is strict — the CIC/SIC will dismiss without prejudice if First Appeal was never filed.
	+
	+	===== Where this fits in the RTI escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	- Informal channel.
	+	- RTI under §6(1).
	+	- First Appeal under §19(1).
	+	- Second Appeal under §19(3) — the topic of this guide.
	+	- Writ petition at High Court under Article 226 (against CIC/SIC order itself).
	+	- Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court (extremely rare).
	+
	+	Second Appeal is the external, statutory appellate stage. Unlike First Appeal (which is internal to the same Public Authority), Second Appeal is heard by an independent Information Commission — appointed under §12 (CIC) and §15 (SIC). The Commissioners are typically retired senior bureaucrats, judges, or civil society leaders.
	+
	+	===== What Second Appeal actually is =====
	+
	+	Under §19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005:
	+
	+	> //"A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission..."//
	+
	+	Three powers of the CIC / SIC, defined in §19(8):
	+
	+	* §19(8)(a) — direct the PA to provide the information sought, in any specified manner.
	+	* §19(8)(b) — direct the PA to compensate the complainant for any loss / detriment suffered.
	+	* §19(8)(c) — impose any of the penalties under §20.
	+
	+	And under §19(9): //"The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority."//
	+
	+	The order is final under §19(7) — but subject to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Delhi HC in Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) is itself an example of such a writ.
	+
	+	===== Where to file — CIC or SIC? =====
	+
	+	The basic test: Who controls the Public Authority?
	+
	+	==== Central Information Commission (CIC) — cic.gov.in ====
	+
	+	For PAs under the Central Government:
	+
	+	* Central Ministries (Home, Finance, Defence, External Affairs, Health, Railways, etc.).
	+	* Central PSUs (LIC, ONGC, IOC, BHEL, BSNL, MTNL, NTPC, etc.).
	+	* Central Universities (Delhi University, JNU, BHU, AMU, IITs, IIMs).
	+	* Central regulatory bodies (RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, TRAI, UGC, AICTE).
	+	* Constitutional bodies (UPSC, ECI, CAG, NHRC).
	+	* Supreme Court of India (administrative side — confirmed by SC in CJI v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal (2019) 18 SCC 459 that even the office of the CJI is a public authority under RTI for administrative matters).
	+	* The President's Secretariat, PMO, Cabinet Secretariat.
	+
	+	Address: Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067. Online: cic.gov.in.
	+
	+	==== State Information Commission (SIC) — state-specific ====
	+
	+	For PAs under the State Government:
	+
	+	* State Departments (Revenue, Police, Health, Education, Urban Development, Public Works).
	+	* State PSUs and undertakings.
	+	* State Universities, Boards, Corporations.
	+	* Panchayati Raj Institutions (Gram Panchayat, Block Panchayat, Zilla Parishad).
	+	* Municipal Corporations / Councils.
	+	* High Courts (administrative side).
	+	* State PSBs and Cooperative Banks.
	+
	+	Each state has its own SIC with its own portal. A few examples:
	+
	+	* Maharashtra SIC — sic.maharashtra.gov.in
	+	* Karnataka SIC — kic.karnataka.gov.in
	+	* Tamil Nadu SIC — tnsic.tn.gov.in
	+	* Kerala SIC — keralasic.gov.in
	+	* MP SIC — sic.mp.gov.in
	+	* UP SIC — upsic.up.nic.in
	+	* Rajasthan SIC — rti.rajasthan.gov.in
	+	* Delhi (UT — but treated state-wise) — dic.delhi.gov.in
	+
	+	When in doubt, look at who is the competent administrative authority over the PA. If salaries are paid from the Consolidated Fund of India → CIC. From the Consolidated Fund of the State → SIC.
	+
	+	===== Time limit and condonation =====
	+
	+	* 90 days from FAA decision date (date you received the order, not the date the order was passed).
	+	* 90 days from when FAA decision was due (i.e., 45 days from First Appeal filing) — if FAA didn't decide.
	+	* Beyond 90 days — the CIC / SIC can condone delay for "sufficient cause" under §19(3) proviso. Sufficient cause includes serious illness, transit delay, court vacations, postal failures with proof. File a separate "Petition for Condonation of Delay" along with the appeal explaining the cause with supporting evidence (medical certificate, postal receipt, etc.).
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process — filing Second Appeal =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Verify deadline and prepare documents ====
	+
	+	Mark Day 90 from the relevant trigger date. Compile:
	+
	+	- Original RTI application (with proof of filing — Speed Post tracking / online registration).
	+	- PIO's response (or evidence of non-response).
	+	- First Appeal cover letter (with proof of filing).
	+	- FAA's order (or evidence of non-decision after 45 days).
	+	- Index of dates (a single chronology — date of RTI, date PIO responded, date First Appeal filed, date FAA decided).
	+	- Grounds of appeal (a 2-3 page document explaining why the FAA's order is wrong in law or fact).
	+	- Affidavit (in some states — e.g., Maharashtra and TN SICs ask for a sworn affidavit; check state portal).
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Choose the channel ====
	+
	+	* CIC online (recommended for central PAs):
	+	- Go to cic.gov.in → "Online Appeal".
	+	- Register with PAN-based account (one-time).
	+	- Fill Form B — the prescribed CIC second-appeal form.
	+	- Upload PDFs of all annexures (max ~10 MB per file).
	+	- Submit. You get a Diary Number instantly. Bookmark the case page.
	+	* SIC portal (state-specific): Most states now have online filing — workflow is similar to CIC. A few SICs (smaller states) still require offline filing.
	+	* Postal — Speed Post to CIC / SIC address: Two sets of papers. CIC requires one extra set for the bench. SIC requirements vary — most ask for two sets.
	+	* In-person at the Commission's reception: Same number of sets. Get receipt with diary number.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Draft Form B / cover letter ====
	+
	+	Form B (CIC) has prescribed fields. The typical structure:
	+
	+	<code>
	+	FORM B — APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(3) OF THE RTI ACT, 2005
	+
	+	To,
	+	The Registrar,
	+	Central Information Commission,
	+	Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
	+	New Delhi - 110067
	+
	+	[OR, for state — name + address of SIC]
	+
	+	1. Name and address of the appellant:
	+	[Full name, postal address, phone, email]
	+
	+	2. Name and address of the Public Information Officer:
	+	[PIO designation, PA name, address]
	+
	+	3. Name and address of the First Appellate Authority:
	+	[FAA designation, PA name, address]
	+
	+	4. Particulars of the RTI application:
	+	- RTI No.: [XX]
	+	- Date filed: [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	- Mode of filing: [Online / Speed Post / Hand]
	+	- Information sought (in brief): [3-4 lines]
	+
	+	5. Particulars of decision of PIO:
	+	- Date of receipt of PIO's decision: [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	- Brief facts of the decision: [2-3 lines]
	+	[If no response: "PIO did not respond within 30 days; deemed
	+	refusal under §7(2) operative from [DD/MM/YYYY]"]
	+
	+	6. Particulars of First Appeal:
	+	- Date filed: [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	- Date of receipt of FAA's decision: [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	- Brief facts of FAA's decision: [2-3 lines]
	+	[If no decision: "FAA has not decided within 45 days; constructive
	+	dismissal under §19(6) operative from [DD/MM/YYYY]"]
	+
	+	7. Grounds of appeal:
	+	(a) The PIO and FAA have failed to apply the rule laid down in
	+	Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE (2011) 8 SCC 497 that disclosure
	+	is the default and exemptions are to be construed narrowly.
	+	(b) The PIO has invoked §8(1)(?) without discharging the burden
	+	of proof imposed by Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC, 2007).
	+	(c) The information sought is not exempt under §8 or §9 because
	+	[specific factual / legal argument — e.g., "post-award tender
	+	records are public; CIC has held this in multiple orders
	+	including [cite if known]"].
	+	(d) The PIO has charged excess fee / not provided information
	+	free even though the 30-day deadline was breached (§7(6)).
	+	(e) [Any other ground.]
	+
	+	8. Prayer: I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Commission may be
	+	pleased to:
	+	(a) Direct the Public Authority under §19(8)(a) to provide the
	+	information sought in my RTI application, free of cost in view
	+	of §7(6).
	+	(b) Impose penalty under §20(1) on the PIO for malafide refusal /
	+	wilful obstruction, at ₹250 per day of delay, up to ₹25,000.
	+	(c) Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under §20(2).
	+	(d) Pass any other order this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit.
	+
	+	9. Verification:
	+	I, [Name], the appellant above-named, do hereby verify that the
	+	contents of paragraphs 1 to 8 of this appeal are true to the best
	+	of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed
	+	therefrom.
	+
	+	Verified at [Place] on [DD/MM/YYYY].
	+
	+	[Signature]
	+	[Name of Appellant]
	+	[Date]
	+
	+	ANNEXURES:
	+	1. Copy of RTI application + proof of filing
	+	2. Copy of PIO's response (or non-response evidence)
	+	3. Copy of First Appeal + proof of filing
	+	4. Copy of FAA's order (or non-decision evidence)
	+	5. Index of dates
	+	6. [Affidavit, if state requires]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — File and get acknowledgement ====
	+
	+	* Online: instant Diary Number; you can track status on cic.gov.in / SIC portal.
	+	* Postal: get the Speed Post tracking number; the CIC / SIC sends an acknowledgement card with the diary number within 2-4 weeks.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Wait for hearing notice ====
	+
	+	Realistic timelines (2025-26):
	+
	+	* CIC: 6-18 months from filing to first hearing (backlog has improved since 2023 with virtual hearings).
	+	* State SICs: 4-12 months at most; some smaller-state SICs now hear within 60-90 days.
	+
	+	You can request early hearing if:
	+
	+	* You are a senior citizen (60+) or person with disability.
	+	* The matter involves life and liberty (§7(2) information).
	+	* Public interest is acute (election-related, scheme rollout deadlines).
	+
	+	File a brief application: //"Application for early hearing under [CIC Procedure Regulations]"//. Email to registry @cic.gov.in with diary number.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Hearing ====
	+
	+	Most hearings since 2020 are virtual — Zoom / WebEx / NIC video conferencing. You'll get a hearing notice 2-3 weeks in advance with the link.
	+
	+	* Who attends: the appellant (you), the PIO, the FAA, sometimes the Head of Department of the PA. CIC / SIC bench (one or two Information Commissioners).
	+	* Format: the Commissioner reads out the case briefly, asks the appellant to make submissions (5-15 minutes), then the PIO responds (5-15 minutes). Brief exchange. The Commissioner may dictate an interim or final order on the spot.
	+	* Documents to keep handy: all annexures, your case-law photocopies (Aditya Bandopadhyay, Bhagat Singh, RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, CJI Office, Subhash Chandra Agrawal), and a one-page summary of grounds.
	+	* Etiquette: address the bench as //"Hon'ble Commissioner"//. Keep tone respectful. Don't interrupt the PIO; you'll get rebuttal time.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Final order ====
	+
	+	The Commission's order arrives by post / email / portal within 2-8 weeks of hearing. Possible outcomes:
	+
	+	* Allowed — direction to PA to disclose, often within 15-30 days, free of cost.
	+	* Allowed with §20 penalty — disclosure direction + penalty on PIO (₹250/day, max ₹25,000).
	+	* Partially allowed — some disclosure, some legitimately withheld.
	+	* Dismissed — refusal upheld. You can then approach the High Court under Article 226 (writ).
	+	* Remanded — sent back to PIO / FAA for fresh consideration with directions.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Enforce the order ====
	+
	+	If the PA complies — done. If the PA defies the CIC/SIC order:
	+
	+	* Write to the Registrar of CIC / SIC seeking enforcement.
	+	* Apply for fresh §20 penalty proceedings on the disobedience.
	+	* Approach the High Court for a mandamus writ to enforce the Commission's order.
	+
	+	===== Section 20 — penalty and disciplinary action =====
	+
	+	The most powerful provision in the RTI Act for the citizen.
	+
	+	* §20(1) — penalty: ₹250 per day of delay, maximum ₹25,000, imposed personally on the PIO. The PIO has the right to be heard before penalty is imposed (principles of natural justice).
	+	* §20(2) — disciplinary action: Commission can recommend disciplinary action under the PIO's service rules. The PA must initiate the inquiry; the Commission has no direct disciplinary power.
	+	* Standard of proof: PIO must show that the refusal / delay was for "reasonable cause" — failing which, penalty follows almost automatically.
	+
	+	The CIC has imposed penalties in landmark cases including denial of information about MPLAD funds, electoral expenditure, and PSU appointment processes. SICs vary — some are aggressive (Karnataka, Kerala), some are mild.
	+
	+	===== Landmark cases to cite in Second Appeal =====
	+
	+	* Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE (2011) 8 SCC 497 — disclosure is the default; §8 exemptions read narrowly. Citizen's motive irrelevant. Even examination answer scripts are disclosable.
	+	* Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC, WP(C) 3114/2007, 03-12-2007) — burden of proving §8 exemption lies on PIO.
	+	* Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer & Others (2010) 2 SCC 1 — citizen cannot demand "reasons" for a quasi-judicial decision under RTI; can only ask for the records.
	+	* RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015) 12 SCC 38 — RBI inspection reports of banks disclosable; "fiduciary relationship" §8(1)(e) read very narrowly. Public authorities defined broadly.
	+	* CBI v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal (2017) — even CBI documents, in non-investigative non-§24 categories, disclosable.
	+	* Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal (2019) 18 SCC 459 — even the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under RTI; SC judges' assets disclosable subject to §8(1)(j) test.
	+	* Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — service records of individual govt servants partially protected under §8(1)(j).
	+	* Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 745 — Information Commissioners' status, eligibility and procedural standards.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + deadline + escalation table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Second Appeal fee (CIC) \| NIL. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Second Appeal fee (most SICs) \| NIL. A few states (Tamil Nadu, MP) \|
	+	\| \| have token ₹10-₹50 — verify on SIC \|
	+	\| \| portal. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Second Appeal deadline \| 90 days from FAA decision OR from \|
	+	\| \| when FAA decision was due (45 days \|
	+	\| \| from First Appeal). §19(3). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| CIC / SIC hearing waiting period \| CIC: 6-18 months. SIC: 4-12 months. \|
	+	\| \| Early hearing for senior citizens / \|
	+	\| \| disability / urgent public interest. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| §20 penalty on PIO \| ₹250/day of delay, max ₹25,000. \|
	+	\| \| Personal liability of PIO. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| §20(2) disciplinary action \| Commission recommends; PA initiates \|
	+	\| \| inquiry under service rules. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| §19(8)(b) compensation \| For loss / detriment suffered. \|
	+	\| \| Rarely awarded but available. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Writ petition (Art. 226) at HC \| Court fee varies state-wise (₹200 \|
	+	\| \| to ₹2,000). Usually requires lawyer. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons Second Appeals get rejected =====
	+
	+	* Time-barred — filed after 90 days without "sufficient cause" condonation petition. File the condonation petition simultaneously with the appeal, with supporting evidence.
	+	* First Appeal not filed — Second Appeal jurisdiction requires FAA stage to be exhausted (or 45 days lapsed). File First Appeal first; restart the clock.
	+	* Same matter already decided by court — res judicata. If a writ on the same facts was dismissed, Second Appeal is barred.
	+	* §8 exemption legitimately invoked — particularly §8(1)(a) (sovereignty / strategic), §8(1)(g) (information that would endanger life), or §24 (intelligence and security organisations listed in Second Schedule, excluded entirely).
	+	* §9 — third-party copyright — if information involves another's copyright, conditional disclosure or refusal is permitted.
	+	* Frivolous / vexatious appeal — repeat appeals on closed matters; CIC/SIC can dismiss with strong words.
	+	* Personal information in §8(1)(j) wrongly invoked but Commission accepts — counter by showing larger public interest.
	+	* PA outside CIC/SIC jurisdiction — e.g., a state PA appealed at CIC. The appeal is returned for refiling at the right Commission.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — beyond Second Appeal =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Application for fresh §20 proceedings ====
	+
	+	If the PA complies with the disclosure but the PIO escapes penalty in the original order, you can file a separate application requesting fresh §20 proceedings — particularly if the disobedience continued after the order. Address to the Registrar with the original diary number.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Writ petition under Article 226 ====
	+
	+	Filed at the High Court of competent jurisdiction. Used when:
	+
	+	* The Commission's order is perverse (no reasonable Commission would have arrived at it).
	+	* The Commission has acted in excess of jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice.
	+	* The Commission has refused to apply binding Supreme Court / High Court precedent.
	+
	+	Bhagat Singh v. CIC is the canonical example — a citizen successfully reversed an erroneous CIC order denying CBI material. Court fee + advocate cost typically ₹15,000-50,000. Free Legal Aid Cell at the High Court can help if you can't afford an advocate.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Special Leave Petition (SLP) at Supreme Court ====
	+
	+	Extremely rare for RTI matters. Generally only if a constitutional question of law arises or a conflict of two High Courts. Most SLPs in RTI go through Article 136 jurisdiction.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Contempt / disciplinary route ====
	+
	+	If the PA wilfully ignores even a writ order, contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are available. Separately, CPGRAMS complaints to the relevant Ministry / Department secretariat can yield administrative pressure.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Can I appear through an advocate at CIC / SIC hearings?\\
	+	There is no statutory bar on advocate representation, but RTI is designed for self-representation. The CIC has held that advocates can appear, but informally many Commissioners discourage it for citizen-side appeals (the PA may bring a senior officer, but rarely an advocate).
	+
	+	Q. Can I bring a friend or relative to assist me at the hearing?\\
	+	Yes. Many citizens are accompanied by family or RTI activists. The Commissioner may allow them to make submissions if you request — or you can have them sit silently and prompt you on facts.
	+
	+	Q. The CIC website registration requires PAN. I don't have one. What now?\\
	+	File offline by Speed Post to CIC, Munirka, New Delhi. Online filing at most SICs also requires Aadhaar / PAN; if you have neither, file offline.
	+
	+	Q. The CIC has imposed §20 penalty but the PIO refuses to pay. How do I enforce?\\
	+	The penalty is recovered as arrears of land revenue under §20(1) proviso. The Commission writes to the PA, which deducts from the PIO's salary. If not deducted, write back to the Commission's Registrar; Commission can issue further directions.
	+
	+	Q. The Information Commission is heavily backlogged in my state. Can I bypass it?\\
	+	No. §19(3) creates exclusive jurisdiction. You can apply for early hearing on grounds of senior citizen / disability / urgency. You can also file a writ at the High Court for mandamus asking the SIC to dispose of the appeal in a time-bound manner.
	+
	+	Q. I want to argue the PA is a "public authority" under §2(h) but the PA disputes this. Will Second Appeal decide?\\
	+	Yes — this is one of the threshold questions Information Commissions decide all the time. Cite Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82 (cooperative banks not public authorities unless substantially funded), D.A.V. College Trust v. Director of Public Instructions (2019) 9 SCC 185 (substantially funded NGOs), and CJI Office case (2019) for the broad view.
	+
	+	Q. The Information Commissioner who heard my matter retired before passing the order. What now?\\
	+	The matter is typically reassigned to another Commissioner who may rehear or decide on the existing record. You'll get a notice. If the new Commissioner doesn't issue an order within reasonable time, write to the Chief Information Commissioner.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file Second Appeal on behalf of someone else (e.g., my elderly parent)?\\
	+	Yes — with a written authorisation from the original applicant. The applicant is the rights-holder; you are the representative. Carry the authorisation letter to the hearing.
	+
	+	Q. The hearing is scheduled when I'm out of town. Can I get adjournment?\\
	+	Yes. Write a brief application for adjournment to the Registrar at least 7 days before the hearing date, citing the reason. Adjournments are usually granted once or twice.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026\|How to file First Appeal under §19(1) — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:claim-rti-fee-waiver-bpl-2026\|How to claim RTI fee waiver as BPL cardholder — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. CIC and SIC procedural regulations evolve; verify current procedure on cic.gov.in or your state SIC portal, or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale citation.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-act-2005 second-appeal section-19 section-19-3 cic sic central-information-commission state-information-commission rti-form-b section-20-penalty section-19-8 aditya-bandopadhyay bhagat-singh rbi-jayantilal-mistry cji-office-case writ-petition citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to file a POSH workplace harassment complaint

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(POSH Act 2013,sexual harassment workplace India,Internal Committee complaint,Local Committee district officer,Vishaka guidelines 1997,Aparna Bhat 2021,SHe-Box portal shebox.nic.in,POSH 90 day inquiry,workplace harassment 3 month limitation,IC composition mandatory,women safety workplace,POSH retaliation section 19,POSH compensation 2026)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing a sexual harassment complaint under the POSH Act 2013 — Internal Committee at your employer, Local Committee at the District.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to file a POSH workplace harassment complaint ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:file-posh-workplace-harassment-complaint-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to file POSH workplace harassment complaint 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. If you have been sexually harassed at your workplace in India, the law that protects you is the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 — the "POSH Act". File a written complaint within 3 months of the latest incident (extendable by another 3 months for sufficient cause) to the Internal Committee (IC) of your employer if it has 10 or more workers (mandatory under §4), or to the Local Committee (LC) at the District Officer's office if your workplace is smaller or the complaint is against your employer himself. You can also file online on SHe-Box (shebox.nic.in), the Ministry of Women and Child Development's central portal. The IC/LC must complete the inquiry within 90 days (§11), recommend action to the employer who must implement within 60 days (§13), and protect your identity throughout (§16). Retaliation — transfer, dismissal, hostile assignment — is itself an offence under §19.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Sneha's story — "From WhatsApp screenshots to dismissal in 4 months" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Sneha Khandelwal, 27, marketing executive at a 600-person SaaS company in Pune. Joined December 2023. Reported to a team lead, Mr. R., from January 2025.//
	+
	+	> "It started in February — odd late-night WhatsApp messages 'just checking on the campaign'. By March it was explicit. He'd corner me near the coffee machine, brush against me, then play it off as accidental. I started screenshotting everything in early March, kept a Google Doc dated diary, told two colleagues — Aarti and Suresh — who saw two of the incidents. On 14 March 2025 I filed a written complaint to our IC chairperson — six pages, 23 WhatsApp screenshots, my dated log, Aarti and Suresh's signed witness statements, my offer letter showing his reporting authority. The IC issued notice to Mr. R within five days. Inquiry: four sittings between 25 March and 5 June 2025, both sides cross-examined, screenshots authenticated by IT (the metadata matched the dates I claimed). Final report on 18 June: harassment proved. Recommendation: dismissal of Mr. R + ₹3 lakh compensation to me + counselling + a public POSH refresher for the team. The company complied — Mr. R was dismissed on 30 June 2025, the ₹3 lakh hit my account on 12 July. I stayed in the same role with a new team lead. Total elapsed time from complaint to dismissal: 109 days. Total cost to me: zero. Internal Committee cost: their time. The screenshots I had kept since February were the entire case."
	+
	+	—Sneha, August 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	The Local Committees and Internal Committees of India received roughly 38,500 POSH complaints in 2024 (Ministry of W&CD data tabled in Parliament, March 2025) — up from 22,000 in 2020. Of these, around 57% ended in inquiry findings against the respondent; the remaining included complaints withdrawn, settled at conciliation, or found unsubstantiated. The biggest gap remains awareness — POSH compliance audits (CII, 2024) found that only 41% of mid-sized Indian companies had a properly constituted IC with a trained external member, even though the Act has been in force for 12 years.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and the legal architecture =====
	+
	+	The POSH Act 2013 was the legislative response to the Supreme Court's Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 judgment, where the Court — in the absence of any law — laid down binding workplace safety guidelines. The 2013 Act codified and expanded those guidelines.
	+
	+	Sexual harassment is defined in §2(n) and §3 as any one or more unwelcome acts or behaviour:
	+
	+	- Physical contact and advances.
	+	- A demand or request for sexual favours.
	+	- Sexually coloured remarks.
	+	- Showing pornography.
	+	- Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
	+
	+	Plus any of these circumstances under §3(2):
	+	- Implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment.
	+	- Implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment.
	+	- Implied or explicit threat about present or future employment status.
	+	- Interference with work or creating a hostile work environment.
	+	- Humiliating treatment likely to affect health or safety.
	+
	+	Workplace is defined broadly under §2(o) to include offices, factories, hospitals, training institutes, sports facilities, dwellings (for domestic workers), transport provided by the employer, and any place visited by the employee in the course of employment — so business travel, client sites, and conferences are all covered.
	+
	+	Aggrieved woman under §2(a) means any woman of any age, employed or not, in any capacity (regular, temporary, daily wage, contract, intern, trainee, or even a visitor). The Act protects only women — though many companies have voluntarily extended their internal policies to all genders.
	+
	+	The Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat v. State of MP (2021) 4 SCC 99 reaffirmed that POSH inquiry is mandatory whenever the conditions are met, and held that judicial officers granting bail to accused in sexual offence cases cannot impose conditions that "trivialise" the offence (no rakhi-tying, no apology marriages). The case set the broader judicial tone of strict POSH enforcement.
	+
	+	===== Where to file =====
	+
	+	==== Internal Committee (IC) — for workplaces with 10 or more workers ====
	+
	+	Under §4 POSH Act, every employer with 10 or more workers must constitute an Internal Committee. The IC must have:
	+
	+	* Presiding Officer — a senior woman employee.
	+	* At least two members from among employees, preferably committed to women's causes or with relevant experience.
	+	* One external member from an NGO / lawyer / specialist working on women's issues — this is mandatory and not optional.
	+	* At least 50% women in total composition.
	+	* Term: 3 years.
	+
	+	Failure to constitute an IC is itself a punishable offence under §26 — fine up to ₹50,000 for first offence, double + cancellation of licence for repeat. So if your employer says "we don't have an IC", note that they are already breaching the law.
	+
	+	==== Local Committee (LC) — for smaller workplaces and complaints against the employer ====
	+
	+	Under §6, every district has a Local Committee constituted by the District Officer (Collector / DM / Deputy Commissioner). You file with the LC if:
	+
	+	* Your workplace has fewer than 10 workers (no IC).
	+	* Your complaint is against the employer himself (you cannot complain to an IC he controls).
	+	* The IC is non-functional or not properly constituted.
	+
	+	The LC has similar composition — chairperson is an eminent woman, members include a woman from local NGO, two members nominated from local panchayats / municipalities, and an officer dealing with women's issues.
	+
	+	==== SHe-Box — the central online portal ====
	+
	+	shebox.nic.in is the Ministry of W&CD's centralised complaint platform. You can file online with documents and screenshots. The complaint is then auto-routed:
	+
	+	* If you are a Central Government employee — to the IC of your ministry/department.
	+	* If you are a State Government employee — to the appropriate State IC.
	+	* If you are a private-sector employee — to the IC of the employer (forwarded by Ministry).
	+	* If no IC exists — to the LC of the relevant district.
	+
	+	SHe-Box also lets you monitor the status of your complaint and escalate if no action.
	+
	+	==== Helplines ====
	+
	+	* Women's Helpline 181 — 24x7, every state.
	+	* NCW (National Commission for Women) helpline 7827170170 — 24x7.
	+	* NCW Mahila e-Helpline — at ncwapps.nic.in for online complaints.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Document everything immediately ====
	+
	+	Before you do anything else, secure the evidence:
	+
	+	* WhatsApp / SMS / email screenshots — with timestamps, sender ID, full thread (not cropped).
	+	* Cloud / device backups — back up the entire WhatsApp chat (Settings → Chats → Export chat → Email to yourself).
	+	* CCTV footage — written request to office security to preserve footage of the date/place. CCTV is typically overwritten in 7-30 days, so move fast.
	+	* Witness names + contacts — colleagues who saw or to whom you spoke contemporaneously.
	+	* Dated personal log — a Google Doc / handwritten diary recording each incident in your own words on the day it happened. Contemporaneous notes carry strong evidentiary weight.
	+	* Medical / counselling records — if you sought help.
	+	* Your offer letter and the respondent's role — to establish workplace and reporting hierarchy.
	+
	+	Do not confront the respondent directly before filing — many cases are weakened by emotional confrontations that are then turned around as "she also abused".
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Locate your IC (or LC) ====
	+
	+	Look for the POSH Policy posted on your company intranet, HR portal, or noticeboard. Every employer must display the IC's composition, contact emails, and complaint mechanism prominently (§19(b)). If you cannot find it:
	+
	+	* Ask HR in writing (email — keep the trail).
	+	* If HR refuses or stonewalls, that itself is a §26 violation. Document this email exchange.
	+	* Switch to LC route at your District Officer's office.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Draft the written complaint ====
	+
	+	POSH complaints must be in writing. The complaint should contain:
	+
	+	* Your name, designation, employee ID, contact details.
	+	* Respondent's name, designation, reporting relationship.
	+	* Date(s), time(s), place(s) of each incident — chronologically.
	+	* Nature of conduct — verbatim if possible (the exact words / messages).
	+	* Witnesses — names and contacts.
	+	* Documentary evidence attached as annexures.
	+	* Relief sought — disciplinary action, transfer of respondent, compensation, counselling.
	+	* Date and signature.
	+
	+	Submit 6 copies (POSH Rule 6) — one is acknowledged back to you with the IC's seal.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — IC issues notice to respondent and conducts inquiry ====
	+
	+	Within 7 days of receiving your complaint (POSH Rule 7), the IC must serve a copy to the respondent. The respondent has 10 days to file his reply.
	+
	+	The IC then conducts the inquiry — sittings, examination of complainant, examination of respondent, examination of witnesses, cross-examination, perusal of documents. The IC has the powers of a Civil Court for summoning witnesses and requiring document production (§11(3)).
	+
	+	The inquiry must be completed within 90 days of receiving the complaint (§11(4)).
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Conciliation (only if you request, before inquiry) ====
	+
	+	Under §10, if the complainant requests, the IC may attempt conciliation between her and the respondent before beginning a formal inquiry. Monetary settlement is not a basis for conciliation. If conciliation succeeds, the IC records the terms and sends them to the employer for action; the inquiry is closed. If conciliation fails or the complainant later wants formal inquiry, the IC proceeds.
	+
	+	Many complainants skip conciliation entirely and go straight to inquiry — this is your call.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — IC submits report and recommendations ====
	+
	+	Within 10 days of completing the inquiry, the IC submits its report to the employer (§13(1)) with one of two findings:
	+
	+	- Allegation not proved — IC recommends no action; report copy to both parties.
	+	- Allegation proved — IC recommends action under the company's service rules (warning, transfer, suspension, dismissal) plus compensation to the complainant.
	+
	+	For the compensation, §15 lists the factors: mental trauma, loss of career opportunity, medical expenses, income and financial status of the respondent. Compensation amounts in real cases have ranged from ₹50,000 to ₹50 lakh, but typically ₹2-10 lakh.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Employer acts within 60 days ====
	+
	+	The employer is bound by §13(3) to act on the IC's recommendation within 60 days. If the recommendation is dismissal, the employer must dismiss; if compensation, the employer must pay (and may recover from the respondent's salary).
	+
	+	If the employer refuses to act, the IC reports it to the District Officer, who can prosecute under §26.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Appeal (if either party is dissatisfied) ====
	+
	+	Either party can appeal under §18 to the Appellate Authority (the appellate body under the company's service rules, or the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court for non-government workers) within 90 days of the recommendation. For government employees, the appeal lies under the relevant CCS (CCA) Rules.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline + protections table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Filing the complaint \| NIL fee — POSH process is free \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lawyer (you can engage one but not \| Optional. ₹0 to ₹50,000 \|
	+	\| required at IC stage) \| depending on city / lawyer. \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Limitation \| 3 months from latest incident \|
	+	\| \| (extendable to 6 months for \|
	+	\| \| sufficient cause — §9 proviso) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Notice to respondent \| Within 7 days of complaint \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Respondent's reply \| Within 10 days of notice \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Inquiry completion \| 90 days from complaint (§11(4)) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| IC report submission \| 10 days after inquiry ends (§13(1)) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Employer action on recommendation \| 60 days (§13(3)) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Appeal period \| 90 days from recommendation (§18) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Compensation range (typical) \| ₹50,000 - ₹10,00,000 \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Identity confidentiality \| Mandatory under §16; breach = ₹5,000 \|
	+	\| \| fine \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Retaliation against complainant \| §19 — separately punishable; the \|
	+	\| \| employer must safeguard (transfer \|
	+	\| \| request granted within reasonable \|
	+	\| \| time) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Failure to constitute IC \| §26 — fine up to ₹50,000 (1st \|
	+	\| \| offence); double + licence cancelled \|
	+	\| \| for repeat \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI (only for public sector \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	\| employers / govt offices) \| \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons POSH complaints stall =====
	+
	+	* No IC formed by employer. This itself is a §26 violation — file with the LC instead, and report the violation to the District Officer / Ministry of Labour.
	+	* IC biased or dominated by respondent's allies. Apply in writing for one or more members to recuse, or escalate to the LC route citing IC dysfunction. Some High Courts have ordered transfer of inquiry to LC where IC bias was demonstrated.
	+	* 3-month limitation crossed. §9 allows extension to 6 months "for reasons recorded in writing". File the complaint with a separate written explanation for the delay (medical, fear of retaliation, lack of awareness).
	+	* Insufficient documentary evidence. POSH inquiry uses preponderance of probabilities (civil standard), not "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal standard). Witness statements, contemporaneous notes, and pattern of behaviour can carry the case even without "smoking gun" evidence.
	+	* Respondent senior to all IC members. Section 4 specifically requires an external member; if the respondent is the boss of all internal members, escalate to LC.
	+	* Retaliation by employer. Sudden transfer, hostile assignment, denied promotion, dismissal — all are §19 offences. File a separate complaint to the IC + a labour court action + escalate to NCW.
	+	* Settlement pressure from HR. HR is not the IC. They cannot pressure you into "conciliation" outside the §10 framework. Refuse to engage with informal settlement attempts; insist on the statutory process.
	+	* Inquiry beyond 90 days. The 90-day rule is mandatory — but breach does not invalidate the inquiry (per Delhi HC in Vidya v. UoI (2018)). However, you can file a fresh complaint with the LC alleging dysfunction, and write to the Ministry.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — IC chairperson written reminder ====
	+
	+	If the inquiry is delayed beyond 90 days, send a written reminder to the IC chairperson with copy to the external member, citing §11(4). This often unstuck things — IC members are accountable for procedural breaches.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — District Officer / Local Committee ====
	+
	+	Where the IC is dysfunctional or the employer non-compliant, escalate in writing to the District Officer (Collector / DM) of the district where the workplace is. The DO is the authority under §5 and can intervene, transfer the matter to the LC, or initiate §26 prosecution against the employer.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — State Women's Commission ====
	+
	+	Every state has a Women's Commission (Maharashtra State Women's Commission, Karnataka State Women's Commission, Delhi Commission for Women, etc.). They have suo motu powers under their respective state Acts to call records, summon employers, and direct compliance. File at the SWC website or by post. Hearings typically scheduled in 30-60 days.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — National Commission for Women (NCW) ====
	+
	+	ncw.nic.in → Online Complaint Registration Portal. NCW has powers under §10 of the National Commission for Women Act 1990 to inquire, summon, take affidavits, and recommend action to the Centre. NCW can press the employer + the District Officer + the Ministry. Helpline 7827170170 (24x7) and Mahila e-Helpline.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — SHe-Box and CPGRAMS ====
	+
	+	* SHe-Box (shebox.nic.in) — for status tracking and escalation to Ministry of W&CD.
	+	* CPGRAMS (pgportal.gov.in) → Ministry of Women and Child Development — escalates to a Joint Secretary.
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court ====
	+
	+	If the employer has terminated you in retaliation, or refused to act on the IC's recommendation, file an Industrial Disputes Act 1947 reference or directly approach the Labour Commissioner. For private-sector workers, this is the substantive remedy.
	+
	+	==== Rung 7 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	This is where the POSH world bifurcates. The RTI Act applies to public authorities — Government departments, public-sector undertakings, autonomous bodies, public-funded NGOs. It does not apply directly to private-sector companies.
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* You are an employee of a Central / State Government department, PSU, autonomous body, or public-funded entity — RTI to the PIO of that institution for: composition of the IC, dates of IC sittings, copy of the inquiry report, action-taken report by the appointing authority. CIC has consistently held POSH-related institutional records to be disclosable (subject to redaction of personal information of respondent and witnesses).
	+	* Your complaint is with the Local Committee — file RTI to the District Officer's office for: composition of the LC, hearings list, report submitted, action by employer, prosecution under §26.
	+	* You filed via SHe-Box and the case has been routed but not progressed — file RTI to the Ministry of W&CD for: routing log, dates of forward, employer's response.
	+	* You want policy-level data — number of complaints in your district, time-to-disposal, conviction rate. Useful when escalating to NCW or SC.
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You are an employee of a private-sector company — RTI does not apply directly to the company. Use the LC route, NCW, SHe-Box, and CPGRAMS instead. The only RTI handle is to the Labour Commissioner or District Officer for the public records they hold about your employer.
	+	* You want the identity of witnesses in another POSH case — protected under §16 confidentiality.
	+	* You want the IC's internal deliberations or draft reports — these are generally exempt under §8(1)(j) (personal information of identifiable third parties) and §8(1)(g) (information that endangers life or safety).
	+	* You are seeking the respondent's medical / disciplinary record without nexus to your case — denied under §8(1)(j).
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Can I file a POSH complaint anonymously?\\
	+	No. The complaint must be in writing and signed. However, your identity is protected during the inquiry under §16 — your name is not disclosed in any external publication or to media. Anonymous tips can trigger an internal awareness session but not a formal POSH inquiry.
	+
	+	Q. Is POSH only for women?\\
	+	The POSH Act 2013 protects women only. However, many large employers have voluntarily extended their internal policy to all genders. If you are a male / non-binary employee facing harassment, look at your company's expanded policy + general employment law (criminal complaint under §354A IPC for women victims; for male victims under §377 IPC for non-consensual acts; civil action for hostile work environment).
	+
	+	Q. What if the harassment was online (WhatsApp, email, Zoom)?\\
	+	Fully covered. The Karnataka HC in X v. Internal Complaints Committee (2022) and several other rulings have confirmed that "workplace" includes virtual workplaces. Online harassment by a co-worker, supervisor, or even a client over work channels is POSH-able.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file POSH and a criminal case (FIR §354A IPC) simultaneously?\\
	+	Yes. They run in parallel. POSH gives you institutional remedies (dismissal, compensation); the FIR triggers criminal prosecution (jail up to 3 years for §354A). Many serious cases use both.
	+
	+	Q. The respondent is a client / vendor, not my colleague — does POSH apply?\\
	+	Yes. §3 covers harassment "at the workplace", which includes incidents involving any person you encounter in the course of employment — including clients and vendors. The IC of your employer is the right forum. If the respondent is from a vendor company, your employer is also expected to flag the issue with the vendor.
	+
	+	Q. What if I no longer work at that employer when the harassment happened?\\
	+	You can still file a complaint about your former employment, within 3 months (extendable to 6) of the latest incident. The former employer's IC retains jurisdiction.
	+
	+	Q. The IC member I want to recuse refuses — what now?\\
	+	File a written request with the chairperson. If denied, escalate to the LC / District Officer for a transfer of proceedings on grounds of bias. Document everything.
	+
	+	Q. Can my employer transfer me away from the respondent's team during the inquiry?\\
	+	Yes — under §12 the IC can recommend interim measures including: transfer of complainant or respondent, leave for the complainant (up to 3 months, treated as paid leave separate from regular leave entitlement), restraint from reporting on the complainant's work. Ask for these in your complaint.
	+
	+	Q. What if the IC clears the respondent but I am sure he is guilty?\\
	+	Appeal under §18 within 90 days to the Appellate Authority (Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal for private workers; CAT / appropriate authority for government workers). You can also file a writ in the High Court if the IC inquiry was procedurally flawed.
	+
	+	Q. Can the company fire me for filing a "false" complaint?\\
	+	Under §14, if the IC concludes that a complaint was malicious or filed knowing it to be false, it can recommend action against the complainant. However, mere inability to substantiate a complaint is not enough — the §14 finding requires a separate inquiry into malice. Many complainants worry about this and don't file; in practice, §14 actions are rare.
	+
	+	Q. What is the role of the external member on the IC?\\
	+	To bring an outside, gender-sensitive perspective; to prevent in-house cover-ups; to ensure procedural fairness. Without a sitting external member, the IC is not properly constituted under §4 and any inquiry it conducts can be challenged in a writ.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:file-domestic-violence-complaint-2026\|How to file a domestic violence complaint under PWDVA 2005]]
	+	* [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid — free lawyer through DLSA / NALSA]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. POSH jurisprudence is actively evolving — verify current rulings on virtual workplaces, gig workers, and gender expansion before filing, or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale citation.//
	+
	+	{{tag>posh-act sexual-harassment-workplace internal-committee local-committee shebox-portal vishaka-guidelines aparna-bhat ic-composition workplace-safety women-rights ncw-helpline section-9-posh section-11-posh section-13-posh retaliation-section-19 citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to file mutual consent divorce — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(mutual consent divorce India,Hindu Marriage Act section 13B,Special Marriage Act section 28,Christian divorce section 10A,Parsi divorce,Khula Muslim law,6 month cooling period waiver,Amardeep Singh Harveen Kaur 2017,Family Court divorce filing,first motion second motion,joint petition divorce,alimony settlement,custody agreement,divorce decree 2026)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing mutual consent divorce in India under Hindu, Special, Christian, Parsi or Muslim personal law — joint petition at Family Court.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to file mutual consent divorce — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:file-mutual-consent-divorce-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to file mutual consent divorce 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. Mutual consent divorce is the fastest, cheapest legal route out of a marriage in India when both spouses agree to end it. File a joint petition under §13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (or §28 Special Marriage Act / §10A Indian Divorce Act / Parsi Marriage Act / Khula under Muslim Personal Law) at the Family Court of the district where the marriage was solemnised, where you last cohabited, or where the wife now resides. After the first motion the court records statements and starts the 6-month cooling period under §13B(2). After 6 months (or earlier if you file a waiver under the SC ruling Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746), file the second motion — the decree of divorce is granted in 7-30 days. Total time: 4-8 months with waiver, 7-10 months without. Total cost: ₹15,000-50,000 depending on city and lawyer.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Pratik & Anjali's story — "Four months from petition to decree" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Pratik Deshpande, 32, software architect, and Anjali Iyer, 29, UX designer. Married February 2021 in Bengaluru. Separated September 2023 — irreconcilable differences after a year of counselling. Both wanted out cleanly.//
	+
	+	> "We tried for a year. Two rounds of marriage counselling. We just wanted different lives. By September 2023 I had moved to a PG in Indiranagar, Anjali was in our old Koramangala flat. Eighteen months passed — no acrimony, just absence. In January 2025 we sat across a table at a coffee shop and talked numbers. I would walk away from my 50% claim on the Koramangala flat (₹1.4 crore) and pay ₹15 lakh lump-sum alimony. No children, no maintenance dispute. We hired one joint lawyer through a friend — Adv. Lakshmi Krishnan in Bengaluru — total fee ₹35,000 plus court fees. She drafted a single joint petition citing §13B(1) HMA. We filed at Bengaluru Family Court (Mayo Hall) on 14 February 2025. First motion the same day — judge asked us five questions each, recorded statements, ordered the cooling period. Adv. Lakshmi immediately filed an interim application under Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur asking for waiver — we'd been separated 18 months, all disputes settled in writing, mediation report attached. Waiver granted on 28 March (six weeks). Second motion on 14 April. Decree of divorce signed on 6 June 2025. Four months. ₹35,000 lawyer + ₹2,500 court fees. Compare that to my colleague who has been in a contested divorce since 2018 — seven years and ₹8 lakh in legal fees so far, with no end in sight."
	+
	+	—Pratik, June 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	About 1.36 lakh divorce petitions were filed in India in 2024 (National Judicial Data Grid). Roughly 70% of them were under contested grounds — cruelty, desertion, adultery — dragging on for 5-10 years. The other 30% used the mutual consent route. Of those, a steadily growing share (around 22% in 2024 vs 6% in 2018) used the Amardeep Singh waiver to skip the cooling period entirely. The legal architecture is forgiving — most couples who choose mutual consent simply do not know how light and how fast the process can be.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and which statute applies to you =====
	+
	+	A mutual consent divorce is one where both spouses jointly petition the court to dissolve their marriage. The court does not investigate fault — it only verifies that the consent is genuine, free of fraud or coercion, and that the spouses have lived apart for at least one year and have no realistic hope of reconciliation.
	+
	+	Which statute you file under depends on the religion under which your marriage was solemnised:
	+
	+	* Hindu Marriage Act 1955, §13B — Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains. By far the most-used route.
	+	* Special Marriage Act 1954, §28 — court marriages, inter-faith marriages, and any marriage registered under SMA regardless of the spouses' religion.
	+	* Indian Divorce Act 1869, §10A — Christian marriages.
	+	* Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, §32B — Parsi (Zoroastrian) marriages.
	+	* Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act 1937 + classical fiqh — Muslim marriages dissolved by Khula (wife-initiated, with husband's consent) or Mubarat (mutual consent). Both are extra-judicial in the first instance but require court endorsement under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 for legal recognition (especially for inheritance, passport, custody).
	+
	+	The Supreme Court ruling in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 is the most important legal development in this space. It held that the 6-month cooling period under §13B(2) HMA is directory, not mandatory, and can be waived by the court if specific conditions are met. We will return to this in detail.
	+
	+	===== Eligibility — are you allowed to file mutual consent divorce? =====
	+
	+	Under §13B(1) HMA and equivalent provisions in other personal laws, you must satisfy all four conditions:
	+
	+	- Marriage subsisted at least one year. You cannot file mutual consent divorce within the first year of marriage (with extremely narrow exceptions under §14 HMA for "exceptional hardship", which require permission to file early).
	+	- Spouses have been living separately for at least one year. "Living separately" means no marital relations — even living under the same roof can count, if you can demonstrate physical and emotional separation (the SC affirmed this in Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1991) 2 SCC 25).
	+	- You have not been able to live together. A factual statement that reconciliation has been attempted and failed.
	+	- You have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. Free, informed, undeceived consent on both sides.
	+
	+	Beyond these statutory requirements, courts will also expect you to have agreed in writing on:
	+
	+	* Alimony / maintenance — lump-sum or monthly, who pays, how much, indexation.
	+	* Custody of children (if any) — physical custody, visitation rights, education, religious upbringing.
	+	* Property division — joint property, joint loans, jewellery, FDs, mutual funds, business shares.
	+	* Stridhan return — gifts and jewellery given to the wife at marriage must be returned to her.
	+
	+	Without a settled agreement on these, the court will refer you to mediation and refuse to record the first motion.
	+
	+	===== Where to file =====
	+
	+	The Family Court (or District Court if no Family Court exists) of any one of these places has jurisdiction under §19 HMA:
	+
	+	- The district where the marriage was solemnised.
	+	- The district where the spouses last cohabited.
	+	- The district where the wife resides (added by the 2003 amendment to widen access for women).
	+	- The district where the respondent currently resides.
	+
	+	If your city has a Family Court (most metros and large district HQs do), file there — it is the specialised forum. If no Family Court exists in your district, file at the Principal District Judge's court.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Negotiate and document the settlement ====
	+
	+	Before going anywhere near a court, you need a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or settlement agreement covering everything in the eligibility section above. This is best done with the help of a mediator (court-annexed mediation centres do this for free) or a single joint lawyer.
	+
	+	A typical MoU will cover:
	+
	+	* Date and place of marriage; date of separation; children (if any) and their date of birth.
	+	* Alimony — quantum (lump-sum vs monthly), payment schedule, security (DD or RTGS).
	+	* Custody arrangement; visitation; school + medical decision authority.
	+	* Property — list of all assets, agreed division, who keeps the marital home, who pays the home loan.
	+	* Stridhan list — itemised gold + silver + cash gifts at marriage.
	+	* Withdrawal of all pending litigation (DV cases, §498A FIRs, maintenance under §125 CrPC, RCR petitions).
	+	* No-claim mutual release for the future.
	+
	+	Both spouses sign this MoU, ideally before two witnesses, and notarise it. The MoU itself does not dissolve the marriage — only the court decree does — but a clean MoU makes the rest of the process mechanical.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Engage a lawyer (joint or separate) ====
	+
	+	You can engage one joint lawyer for both spouses (cheapest, around ₹15,000-50,000 in tier-2 cities, ₹50,000-1.5 lakh in metros) or two separate lawyers. The Bar Council of India permits joint representation in mutual consent matters as long as there is no conflict of interest — and by definition, in genuine mutual consent there isn't one.
	+
	+	Make sure your lawyer is enrolled in the Bar Council of your state and has experience in matrimonial matters — ask for at least three previous mutual consent decrees they have obtained.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — File the joint petition (First Motion) ====
	+
	+	The petition is filed in duplicate (or as many copies as your local Family Court rules require) and must contain:
	+
	+	* Names, ages, addresses of both petitioners.
	+	* Date and place of marriage; certified copy of marriage certificate.
	+	* Date of separation; reason for separation (in one factual sentence — no need to elaborate).
	+	* Statement that all four §13B(1) conditions are satisfied.
	+	* Settlement agreement (MoU) attached as annexure.
	+	* Joint affidavit signed by both petitioners on stamp paper (₹100 in most states).
	+	* Court fee stamps (varies — Karnataka ₹100, Delhi ₹500, Maharashtra ₹250).
	+
	+	Documents to attach:
	+
	+	* Marriage certificate (original + copies).
	+	* Aadhaar of both spouses.
	+	* Passport-size photos.
	+	* Address proof of jurisdiction (electricity bill, rent agreement).
	+	* Income proof (latest ITR + Form 16) — to back up the alimony quantum.
	+	* Property documents (sale deed of marital home, FD certificates) — supporting the settlement.
	+	* MoU / settlement agreement.
	+
	+	The court issues a case number the same day or within 2-3 days. The judge fixes a date for the first motion hearing, typically 1-3 weeks out.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — First motion hearing ====
	+
	+	Both spouses must appear in person before the judge. The judge will:
	+
	+	- Verify both your identities (Aadhaar / PAN).
	+	- Ask each of you separately whether the consent is free, voluntary, and not under coercion or fraud.
	+	- Confirm that you understand the consequences of divorce.
	+	- Ask about children, custody, alimony.
	+	- Record your sworn statements.
	+
	+	If satisfied, the judge records the first motion and orders the 6-month cooling period under §13B(2). The next hearing is fixed at 6 months and 1 day from this date (the second motion).
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — File interim application for cooling period waiver (optional but recommended) ====
	+
	+	This is the Amardeep Singh moment. If your case meets all the SC criteria, file an interim application (IA) under §13B(2) read with Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 asking the court to waive the 6-month wait.
	+
	+	The SC laid down four cumulative conditions for waiver:
	+
	+	- The 18-month statutory ceiling (1-year separation + 6-month cooling) has effectively been crossed by virtue of the parties having lived separately for at least 18 months before filing.
	+	- All efforts at mediation and reconciliation have been attempted and have failed.
	+	- All disputes (alimony, custody, property) have been finally settled in writing.
	+	- Waiting any further would only prolong the agony of the parties.
	+
	+	Attach: separation timeline with documentary proof (rent receipts, separate bank statements), mediation centre certificate (if any), the signed MoU, joint affidavit by both parties asking for waiver.
	+
	+	The court typically decides this IA in 1-2 months. Roughly 65-70% of waiver applications are granted in metro Family Courts (anecdotal — exact data not centrally tracked). If granted, the second motion can be heard immediately.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Second motion hearing ====
	+
	+	Held either after the 6-month cooling period or after the waiver IA is allowed. Both spouses must appear again. The judge will:
	+
	+	- Ask each spouse whether they still consent to the divorce (no second thoughts).
	+	- Verify that the settlement terms have been honoured (e.g., the alimony DD has been handed over).
	+	- Confirm no withdrawal of consent.
	+
	+	If satisfied, the judge passes the decree of divorce under §13B(2). The decree is typed, signed, and sealed within 7-30 days and a certified copy is issued to each spouse.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Update your records ====
	+
	+	The decree changes your marital status legally. You should now:
	+
	+	* Update your Aadhaar marital status (UIDAI Self-Service Portal → Update demographics).
	+	* Update your passport (RPO with the decree).
	+	* Update bank KYC, insurance nominees, PF / EPF nominee, mutual fund nominees.
	+	* If property was transferred, register the sale deed / gift deed at the Sub-Registrar.
	+	* If alimony is taxable in your hands (lump-sum is generally not, monthly is), update your ITR planning.
	+	* If you remarry, the previous decree is your proof of marital status — keep certified copies safe.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline + waiver criteria table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Court fee (joint petition) \| ₹100-₹500 depending on state \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lawyer fee (joint, tier-2 city) \| ₹15,000-30,000 (lump-sum, both \|
	+	\| \| motions + waiver IA) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lawyer fee (joint, metro) \| ₹35,000-1,50,000 \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lawyer fee (two separate lawyers) \| Roughly 1.7x of joint fee \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Stamp paper for affidavit \| ₹100 (varies by state) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Certified copy of decree \| ₹10-50 per page (typically 4-8 pp) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Without waiver — total time \| 7-10 months (1 yr separation + 6 mo \|
	+	\| \| cooling + 1-2 mo decree drafting) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| With Amardeep Singh waiver \| 4-6 months \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Cooling period (statutory) \| §13B(2): minimum 6 months, max 18 \|
	+	\| \| months before second motion filed \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Cooling period waiver — criteria \| (a) ≥18 months actual separation \|
	+	\| (Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, \| before petition; (b) mediation \|
	+	\| 2017 8 SCC 746) \| failed; (c) all disputes settled in \|
	+	\| \| writing; (d) waiting prolongs agony \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to Family Court PIO \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons mutual consent divorce gets stuck =====
	+
	+	* Less than 1 year of marriage. §14 HMA bars filing within the first year except in exceptional hardship — and even then you need the court's prior permission. Wait it out.
	+	* Spouse refuses to appear at second motion. §13B(2) requires both spouses to confirm consent at the second motion. If one doesn't show up — or shows up and withdraws consent — the petition is dismissed and you must convert to a contested divorce on independent grounds (cruelty, desertion). The SC affirmed this in Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1991).
	+	* Custody dispute. If you have children and cannot agree on custody, the court will not record the first motion until the dispute is mediated or independently adjudicated. Many couples resolve this with a "shared parenting plan" mediated by a child psychologist.
	+	* Alimony dispute. The court will not approve a settlement that is grossly unfair to one spouse (especially the wife). If she is a homemaker with no income and the proposed alimony is symbolic, expect the judge to reject the MoU and direct fresh negotiation.
	+	* Property settlement complications. Joint home loans where the bank has not consented to transfer; ancestral property where in-laws claim a share; jointly held FDs/MF folios. These need to be cleaned up before filing.
	+	* Lawyer's tactical delay. A lawyer paid by the hour or by hearing has incentive to drag. Mutual consent should be a flat-fee engagement — confirm this in writing before you sign the vakalatnama.
	+	* Family Court backlog. Some metro Family Courts (Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru) have 6-12 month backlogs even for routine mutual consent matters. The waiver IA helps by collapsing the cooling period — but the actual hearing slots are still scarce.
	+	* MoU not properly drafted. A vague MoU ("alimony to be mutually agreed later") will be returned. The MoU must be specific, time-bound, and enforceable.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Family Court Registrar / Listing Branch ====
	+
	+	For administrative delays (file not listed, hearing not posted, decree copy not issued), approach the Family Court's Registrar or Listing Branch directly. Most Family Courts have a public dealing window 11 am - 1 pm.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Senior Civil Judge / Principal Judge, Family Court ====
	+
	+	If a junior judge is sitting on your file beyond reasonable time, file a written representation to the Principal Judge of the Family Court seeking listing on a specific date. This usually moves things.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — High Court (writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227) ====
	+
	+	For chronic delay, judicial misconduct, or refusal to entertain a clearly maintainable petition, file a writ petition in the State High Court. This is heavy machinery — use only when the lower court has clearly misdirected itself. Cost: ₹10,000-50,000 in lawyer fees plus court fees.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Court-annexed mediation ====
	+
	+	If the dispute is over alimony or custody and not over the divorce itself, ask the Family Court to refer you to its mediation centre (every Family Court has one). Mediation is free, confidential, and often resolves the sticky points in 2-4 sittings. The mediated settlement is then incorporated into the second motion.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	The Family Court is a court of law, but its administrative side (registry, listing, fee receipts, decree drafts) is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005. The Central Information Commission and several High Courts (notably CIC/AT/A/2009/00226 — Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Supreme Court of India and Delhi HC in Court on its own motion (2010)) have confirmed that administrative records of courts are accessible under RTI, even though judicial decision-making is not.
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* Your case has been listed on the cause list but not heard for many sittings — RTI to PIO Family Court for the case status, listing history, and reason for adjournments.
	+	* The decree of divorce has been signed but the certified copy has not been issued in the statutory 30 days — RTI to PIO for the decree drafting and dispatch status.
	+	* The Family Court has not constituted its mediation centre or it is non-functional — RTI to the District & Sessions Judge (administrative head of all subordinate courts) for the mediation centre's constitution and case-load data.
	+	* Court fees were paid but the receipt is missing from your file — RTI to PIO for the receipt log.
	+	* You suspect bias or undue delay and want to escalate to the High Court — RTI gives you a documentary trail to attach.
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You disagree with a judicial order (refusal of waiver, dismissal of petition) — that is a judicial decision, not "information held". Appeal to the High Court instead.
	+	* You want to read the other spouse's private documents in another case — RTI cannot pierce judicial privacy.
	+	* You are still in the cooling period and want to know what the judge is "thinking" — judicial reasoning is not RTI-able until written into an order.
	+	* You want the other spouse's address or financial details — these are personal information under §8(1)(j) RTI Act and will be denied unless the larger public interest is shown.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Can we file mutual consent divorce within the first year of marriage?\\
	+	Generally no — §14 HMA bars it. Exception: with prior court permission on grounds of "exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent". This is rarely granted. Most couples wait out the year.
	+
	+	Q. Do we both need to be physically present at the hearings?\\
	+	Yes, traditionally — but post-Covid, most Family Courts now allow video conferencing for one or both spouses if reasons are shown (NRI status, medical, distance). File an IA with the request.
	+
	+	Q. What if one spouse withdraws consent before the second motion?\\
	+	The petition is dismissed. The other spouse must then file a contested divorce on independent grounds (cruelty, desertion, mental cruelty, irretrievable breakdown). The SC in Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234 confirmed that withdrawal is allowed any time before the decree is passed.
	+
	+	Q. Is alimony taxable?\\
	+	Lump-sum alimony is treated as a capital receipt and is not taxable (CIT v. Princess Maheshwari Devi (1984) 147 ITR 258, Bombay HC). Monthly alimony / maintenance is treated as income in the hands of the receiving spouse and is taxable. Plan accordingly.
	+
	+	Q. Can NRI couples file mutual consent divorce in India?\\
	+	Yes, if the marriage was solemnised in India under a recognised personal law, or registered under the Special Marriage Act. Jurisdiction follows the wife's residence or last cohabitation. Both spouses can appear via video link with court permission.
	+
	+	Q. Does the cooling period waiver apply to all personal laws?\\
	+	Amardeep Singh was decided under §13B HMA. The reasoning has been extended by various High Courts to §28 SMA (court marriages) and §10A Indian Divorce Act (Christian) but not formally applied to Parsi or Muslim divorce (which have their own procedures). Check with your lawyer.
	+
	+	Q. Can same-sex couples file mutual consent divorce?\\
	+	As of 2026, same-sex marriage is not recognised under any Indian personal law (the Supreme Court declined to read it in via Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) — pending review). Hence mutual consent divorce is not available. Same-sex couples seeking to dissolve a relationship may rely on contractual remedies for property division.
	+
	+	Q. What happens to joint loans after divorce?\\
	+	The decree binds the spouses but not the bank. If you had a joint home loan, you must approach the bank for a loan transfer or substitution of borrower before or simultaneously with the property transfer. Otherwise both spouses remain jointly liable to the bank.
	+
	+	Q. Can we file mutual consent divorce online?\\
	+	The petition itself must be filed physically at the Family Court (or via the local e-Filing portal in High Courts that have rolled it out — currently Delhi, Karnataka, Madras, Bombay, Calcutta partially). Hearings can be virtual. Decree is issued in physical form and certified copy obtained from the Copying Branch.
	+
	+	Q. What if my spouse is abroad and refuses to come to India for the hearing?\\
	+	File the petition in India. Request video conferencing for the spouse abroad. If they refuse to participate even by video, you cannot get a mutual consent decree — you will have to file contested divorce on grounds of desertion (after 2 years of continuous desertion under §13(1)(ib) HMA).
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid — free lawyer through DLSA / NALSA]]
	+	* [[:file-domestic-violence-complaint-2026\|How to file a domestic violence complaint under PWDVA 2005]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Personal-law jurisprudence evolves with each Supreme Court ruling — verify current SC and High Court positions on cooling period waiver before filing, or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale citation.//
	+
	+	{{tag>mutual-consent-divorce hindu-marriage-act section-13B special-marriage-act christian-divorce parsi-divorce khula amardeep-singh-harveen-kaur cooling-period-waiver family-court alimony custody first-motion second-motion citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to file a bail application — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(bail application India,regular bail BNSS 483,anticipatory bail BNSS 484,interim bail,Arnesh Kumar guidelines,Sanjay Chandra bail,Satender Kumar Antil,bail conditions surety,bailable non-bailable offence,Sessions Court bail,High Court bail,personal bond,bail rule jail exception,criminal lawyer fee,bail denied grounds)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing bail application in India under BNSS 2023 — regular bail §483, anticipatory bail §484, interim bail.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to file a bail application — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:file-bail-application-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to file bail application 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. "Bail is the rule, jail is the exception" (//State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, 1977 SC//). India has three main types of bail: regular bail under §483 BNSS 2023 (after arrest), anticipatory bail under §484 BNSS (apprehending arrest), and interim bail (urgent + temporary, granted while application is pending). Bailable offences (§478 BNSS) — bail is your right on furnishing bond. Non-bailable offences — bail is at the court's discretion. The court that hears your bail depends on the seriousness of the offence: Magistrate Court (up to 7 years offences), Sessions Court (above 7 years), High Court (anticipatory + serious cases), Supreme Court (exceptional). Lawyer fee ranges from ₹15,000 to ₹1.5 lakh+ depending on city and seniority. After Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) the Supreme Court mandated police to record reasons for arrest in cases punishable up to 7 years — making bail markedly easier in lower-rung offences.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Vikash's story — "Arrested at the airport, out on bail in 7 days" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Vikash Mehta, 32, owner of a small electronics distribution company in Bhopal. Accused in a cheque bounce + cheating case (§138 NI Act + §420 IPC) filed by a former business partner in January 2025.//
	+
	+	> "I had no idea there was a non-bailable warrant against me. I was returning from a business trip to Bangkok in February — at the immigration counter at Indore airport, an officer pulled me aside and within 20 minutes I was at the railway station police chowki. My wife called my CA at 11 pm. The CA called a senior criminal lawyer in Bhopal — fee ₹85,000 for the bail leg. The lawyer reached the magistrate's court the next morning at 10:30 am with a regular bail application under §483 BNSS, my company's antecedent papers (no prior FIR), my income tax returns showing settled local roots, and an undertaking that I would deposit my passport and not leave Madhya Pradesh without court permission. The Magistrate sent me to 14-day judicial custody first — the Magistrate cannot grant bail in serious §420 with the §138 stack on day one. So we moved to the Sessions Court on day 4. The Sessions Judge admitted the bail application, heard the prosecutor on day 5, and granted bail on day 7 — personal bond ₹2 lakh + 2 sureties (my uncle and one business partner each filed property documents worth ₹3 lakh). Conditions: passport deposited with the court, monthly attendance at the police station, no contact with the complainant. I was out by Saturday evening. Total cost: ₹1.05 lakh including lawyer + court fees + bond stamp paper. Trial is still pending. But my life resumed. The lesson my lawyer drilled into me: in any criminal allegation, the FIRST 72 hours decide whether you spend 6 months in jail or 6 days."
	+
	+	—Vikash, March 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	About 5.5 lakh undertrial prisoners are in Indian jails (NCRB Prison Statistics 2023) — over 75% of the prison population. Many are in for offences carrying less than 3 years' punishment but cannot afford bail or sureties. The Supreme Court's Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) judgment formalised four bail categories and directed that for ordinary economic and similar offences, bail should be the norm, not the exception.
	+
	+	===== What bail is — and what it isn't =====
	+
	+	Bail is temporary release of an accused person from custody, on a written undertaking (and usually with sureties) that the accused will:
	+
	+	* Appear in court on every date the case is listed,
	+	* Not flee from justice,
	+	* Not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses,
	+	* Comply with any other conditions the court imposes (deposit passport, daily/weekly police station reporting, etc.).
	+
	+	Bail is not:
	+
	+	* An acquittal. The case continues; you still face trial.
	+	* A right in every case. For non-bailable offences (§485 BNSS), bail is at the court's discretion.
	+	* Without conditions. The court can impose strict conditions; violation = arrest + cancellation.
	+	* Permanent. Bail can be cancelled (§483(5) BNSS) if you breach conditions, threaten witnesses, or commit another offence.
	+
	+	The legal anchors:
	+
	+	* §478 BNSS 2023 — bailable offences: bail is a matter of right; police/Magistrate must release on bond. (Replaces CrPC §436.)
	+	* §480 BNSS — when bail may be granted in non-bailable offences by Magistrate.
	+	* §483 BNSS — power of High Court / Sessions Court to grant bail. (Replaces CrPC §439.)
	+	* §484 BNSS — direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest (anticipatory bail). (Replaces CrPC §438.)
	+	* §485 BNSS — bail to require accused to appear before next court.
	+	* §492 BNSS — power to cancel bail.
	+
	+	The leading rulings every bail lawyer cites:
	+
	+	* State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) — "bail is the rule, jail is the exception".
	+	* Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) — the principles for economic offences: nature of accusations, severity of punishment, likelihood of accused fleeing, likelihood of evidence tampering, character/behaviour of accused, balance between liberty and societal interest.
	+	* Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) — for offences punishable up to 7 years, the police must record reasons before arrest; the Magistrate must record reasons before authorising further detention. Failure to follow Arnesh Kumar guidelines is itself a ground for bail.
	+	* Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) — categorised offences into four buckets (A: ordinary cognizable up to 7 yrs; B: above 7 years/heinous; C: special-Act offences with statutory bars; D: economic offences). Bail must be considered category-by-category — for Category A, bail is the default.
	+	* Siddharth v. State of UP (2021) — investigating officer is not bound to arrest the accused merely because the offence is cognizable; arrest must be necessary.
	+
	+	===== Bail categories — bailable, non-bailable, heinous =====
	+
	+	Indian law classifies every offence as bailable or non-bailable (in the First Schedule of CrPC/BNSS) — the classification determines who can grant bail, on what conditions, and whether bail is a right or a discretion.
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+--------------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
	+	\| CATEGORY \| EXAMPLES \| WHO GRANTS BAIL \|
	+	+--------------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
	+	\| BAILABLE (§478 BNSS) \| IPC §304A (negligence \| Police officer / SHO \|
	+	\| — bail is a right \| causing death), §279 \| at stage of arrest; \|
	+	\| — release on bond \| (rash driving), §379 \| Magistrate must \|
	+	\| \| (theft up to ₹2,000), \| release on bond. \|
	+	\| \| §342 (wrongful \| \|
	+	\| \| confinement) \| \|
	+	+--------------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
	+	\| NON-BAILABLE + non-cognizable \| IPC §148 (rioting with \| Magistrate at his \|
	+	\| — bail at discretion \| weapon), §188 \| discretion (§480 \|
	+	\| \| (disobedience to public \| BNSS). \|
	+	\| \| servant order) \| \|
	+	+--------------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
	+	\| NON-BAILABLE + cognizable \| IPC §307 (attempt to \| Magistrate may grant \|
	+	\| (medium severity) \| murder), §354 (assault \| bail; otherwise \|
	+	\| \| on woman), §420 \| Sessions Court \|
	+	\| \| (cheating) \| under §483 BNSS. \|
	+	+--------------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
	+	\| NON-BAILABLE + cognizable + \| IPC §302 (murder), §376 \| Sessions Court / \|
	+	\| heinous (life or 10+ yrs) \| (rape), §395 (dacoity), \| High Court only. \|
	+	\| — bail granted only by \| UAPA, NDPS, PMLA, POCSO \| Statutory bars apply \|
	+	\| Sessions / HC; statutory \| \| to UAPA/NDPS/PMLA. \|
	+	\| bars in special Acts \| \| \|
	+	+--------------------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Where to file the bail application =====
	+
	+	* Magistrate Court — for bailable offences (release on bond is automatic) and for non-bailable offences punishable up to 7 years where the accused is in police custody. The Magistrate can also grant interim bail for short windows.
	+	* Sessions Court — under §483 BNSS, can grant bail in non-bailable offences punishable above 7 years. Often the first effective forum for serious matters once judicial custody begins.
	+	* High Court — under §483 BNSS, parallel jurisdiction with Sessions Court; usually approached after Sessions denial OR for anticipatory bail under §484. For UAPA/PMLA/NDPS, often direct to High Court.
	+	* Supreme Court — only in exceptional circumstances: constitutional questions, conflict of High Court rulings, or where personal liberty is at acute stake. Article 32 (writ) / Article 136 (SLP).
	+
	+	For anticipatory bail (§484 BNSS), file directly in Sessions or High Court — Magistrates have no power to grant anticipatory bail.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process — regular bail (§483 BNSS) =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Engage a criminal lawyer immediately ====
	+
	+	Speed matters. The first 72 hours after arrest decide whether you spend weeks or days in custody.
	+
	+	* Don't try DIY bail in non-bailable matters. The drafting standard, knowledge of bench, and strategic decisions (Magistrate vs Sessions, timing) need a criminal lawyer.
	+	* Lawyer fee for bail leg alone: ₹15,000 to ₹1,50,000+ depending on city, seniority, severity of offence, and number of hearings expected.
	+	* If you cannot afford a lawyer, you have an immediate right to free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 — a duty counsel will be assigned by DLSA on your request. See [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid / free lawyer]].
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Prepare and file the bail application ====
	+
	+	The application is a written application before the appropriate court (Magistrate / Sessions / HC), citing:
	+
	+	* The FIR + section(s) under which accused is charged
	+	* Date of arrest + place of detention
	+	* Grounds for bail (innocence, no flight risk, deep local roots, no prior antecedents, willingness to deposit passport, illness, family responsibility, completion of investigation, weak prosecution evidence)
	+	* Compliance with Arnesh Kumar (no recorded reasons by police for arrest)
	+	* Reference to Satender Kumar Antil category in which the offence falls
	+	* Undertaking to comply with bail conditions
	+	* Surety details (if known) — names, addresses, age, occupation, ID, property/income proof
	+
	+	Sample skeleton (use a lawyer; this is for orientation only):
	+
	+	<code>
	+	IN THE COURT OF [Sessions Judge / Magistrate]
	+	AT [city] [district]
	+
	+	Bail Application No. _____ of 2026
	+	In the matter of FIR No. ___/____ dated [____]
	+	Police Station [____], District [____]
	+	Under Sections [____] of [IPC / BNS 2023 / Special Act]
	+
	+	[Applicant/Accused name + address + age] ... APPLICANT
	+
	+	Versus
	+
	+	State of [____] ... RESPONDENT
	+
	+	BAIL APPLICATION UNDER §483 OF BNSS 2023
	+	(REGULAR BAIL)
	+
	+	Most respectfully showeth:
	+
	+	1. [Brief factual background of the FIR + role attributed to applicant.]
	+
	+	2. [Date of arrest + nature of custody (police / judicial).]
	+
	+	3. [Investigation status — whether charge sheet filed / pending.]
	+
	+	4. [Personal antecedents of applicant — clean record; permanent
	+	address; family; employment; assets; deep local roots.]
	+
	+	5. GROUNDS FOR BAIL:
	+	(a) The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
	+	(b) The offence(s) attract maximum punishment of [__] years; per
	+	Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) the matter falls in
	+	Category [A/B/C/D] where bail is the rule.
	+	(c) Police did not record reasons for arrest as mandated by
	+	Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014); arrest is illegal.
	+	(d) Investigation is complete / in advanced stage; further
	+	custodial interrogation is not required.
	+	(e) Applicant is the sole earning member of the family; spouse +
	+	__ minor children + elderly parents depend on him.
	+	(f) Applicant has no prior criminal antecedents (affidavit annexed).
	+	(g) Applicant undertakes not to flee from justice, will deposit
	+	passport, will not influence witnesses, will appear on every
	+	hearing date, will report to PS [____] [daily/weekly/monthly]
	+	as the Hon'ble Court may direct.
	+	(h) Offered sureties are men/women of substance with verifiable
	+	property + address (details annexed).
	+
	+	PRAYER:
	+	It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
	+	may be pleased to:
	+	(a) Admit this bail application;
	+	(b) Enlarge the applicant on regular bail under §483 BNSS 2023
	+	on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
	+	and proper;
	+	(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in
	+	the interests of justice.
	+
	+	APPLICANT
	+	Through Counsel
	+	Adv. [Name]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Annex the documents ====
	+
	+	* Copy of FIR
	+	* Police remand papers / custody memo
	+	* Charge sheet (if filed)
	+	* Affidavit of applicant (no prior antecedents; willingness to comply with conditions)
	+	* Address proof — Aadhaar / PAN / passport
	+	* Income proof — ITR for last 3 years / Form 16 / bank statements
	+	* Employer letter (if salaried)
	+	* Property documents (if owner)
	+	* Surety details — Aadhaar + property documents + ITR + photographs of proposed sureties
	+	* Medical records (if illness is a ground)
	+	* Antecedent certificate (NC/Khasra) — issued by local police on application
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — First listing + State's reply ====
	+
	+	* The application is listed before the appropriate court usually within 2-7 days of filing.
	+	* The court issues notice to the public prosecutor (APP) representing the State.
	+	* The APP gets time to file a reply / status report — typically 7-14 days, though urgent matters are heard same/next day.
	+	* In cases involving a victim, the complainant/victim may also be heard (under the 2009 amendment to the CrPC, retained in BNSS).
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Hearing on merits ====
	+
	+	The court considers the Sanjay Chandra factors:
	+
	+	- Nature and seriousness of the accusation.
	+	- Severity of punishment in case of conviction.
	+	- Risk of flight — does the accused have local roots, family, business, property?
	+	- Risk of tampering with evidence / influencing witnesses.
	+	- Antecedents — prior criminal record?
	+	- Health of the accused.
	+	- Length of detention already undergone.
	+	- Stage of investigation — is custodial interrogation still needed?
	+
	+	For economic offences (§420, §406, GST evasion, PMLA, etc.), Sanjay Chandra is followed strongly — bail is generally granted unless the State demonstrates a real risk.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Order: bail granted (or denied) ====
	+
	+	If bail is granted, the order will specify:
	+
	+	* Personal bond amount — typically ₹10,000 to ₹50 lakh+ depending on offence severity. Average for ordinary §420 / §138 / §498A / §304A: ₹50,000 - ₹2,00,000.
	+	* Number and identity of sureties — usually 1-2 sureties, sometimes asked to be local relatives or persons known to the court's jurisdiction.
	+	* Conditions — passport deposit (in cases with international links), daily/weekly attendance at PS, no contact with complainant or witnesses, no leaving the State/country without court permission, cooperation with investigation.
	+
	+	If bail is denied, you can immediately move to the next higher court (Sessions → HC → SC).
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Furnish surety + bond, get released ====
	+
	+	* The sureties go to the court's bail bond clerk with their ID, property/income documents, and a stamp paper of the bond amount.
	+	* Bond stamp paper cost: state-varies, typically ₹100-1,000 (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Delhi).
	+	* The clerk verifies surety, accepts the bond, and issues a release order to the jail superintendent.
	+	* Release usually happens the same day or next morning — but jail-side delays of 1-2 days are common.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Comply with bail conditions strictly ====
	+
	+	* Attend every hearing date — even one default can result in bail cancellation under §492 BNSS + non-bailable warrant + fresh arrest.
	+	* Don't contact the complainant or witnesses.
	+	* Inform the court (via lawyer) before any travel outside the bail jurisdiction.
	+	* Report to police station on the dates specified.
	+	* Carry a copy of the bail order at all times for the first few months.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step — anticipatory bail (§484 BNSS) =====
	+
	+	If you reasonably believe you may be arrested in a non-bailable matter (FIR registered against you, summons received, raid conducted), you can move for anticipatory bail under §484 BNSS — file directly in Sessions Court or High Court.
	+
	+	The application must establish a specific apprehension of arrest (not vague fear). Show:
	+
	+	* FIR registered (annex copy)
	+	* History of police visits / summons / threats from complainant
	+	* Reasonableness of apprehension
	+	* Same Sanjay Chandra grounds for grant
	+	* Clean antecedents
	+	* Willingness to cooperate with investigation
	+
	+	The court may grant interim anticipatory bail initially (1-2 weeks) and convert it to final after hearing the State.
	+
	+	If anticipatory bail is granted:
	+
	+	* The police cannot arrest you in connection with that FIR.
	+	* If arrest is necessary, the police must move the court to cancel the anticipatory bail first.
	+	* You must cooperate with investigation, appear when called, and not flee.
	+
	+	For UAPA, PMLA, NDPS, POCSO — anticipatory bail is either statutorily barred or extremely difficult; consult a senior criminal lawyer.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + bond table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Court fee for bail application \| ₹50-500 (state-varies). Bombay HC \|
	+	\| \| ₹250; Delhi HC ₹250; Sessions ₹50. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lawyer fee (regular bail) \| Magistrate Court: ₹15,000-50,000 \|
	+	\| \| Sessions Court: ₹50,000-2,00,000 \|
	+	\| \| High Court: ₹1,00,000-5,00,000+ \|
	+	\| \| Senior advocate brief: ₹3 L - ₹15 L+ \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Personal bond amount (typical) \| Magistrate: ₹10,000-1,00,000 \|
	+	\| \| Sessions: ₹50,000-5,00,000 \|
	+	\| \| Heinous offences: ₹2,00,000-50 L+ \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Surety requirement \| Usually 1-2 sureties. Property/ITR/ \|
	+	\| \| salary slip in surety's name. Some \|
	+	\| \| courts insist on local sureties. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Stamp paper for bond \| ₹100-1,000 (state-varies). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Anticipatory bail (Sessions / HC) \| Court fee ₹100-500. Lawyer ₹50,000 \|
	+	\| \| -2,00,000 typical. SC: ₹3 L+. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Legal aid (free lawyer) \| NIL — DLSA / SLSA / NALSA. Means \|
	+	\| \| test: income ≤ ₹3 L (state varies). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to PIO court for case status \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. Reply 30 d. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons bail is denied =====
	+
	+	* Heinous nature of offence — murder, rape, terror, large-scale economic fraud.
	+	* Flight risk — accused has foreign passport / NRI status / no local roots / past attempts to evade.
	+	* Tampering / influence risk — accused is in a position to threaten witnesses (e.g., political leader, employer of victim, in-laws in matrimonial cases).
	+	* Prior criminal antecedents — multiple FIRs, prior convictions, previous bail jumps.
	+	* Special-Act statutory bars — UAPA §43D(5), PMLA §45 (twin conditions), NDPS §37 (commercial quantity), all impose stricter tests.
	+	* Stage of investigation — if custodial interrogation is genuinely needed, court will defer bail.
	+	* Vague application / weak grounds — "I am innocent" alone is not a ground; structured Sanjay Chandra arguments are required.
	+	* Non-cooperation in investigation — refusal to appear when summoned, failure to produce documents, suspicious conduct.
	+	* Earlier bail rejected by Magistrate / Sessions — successive bail applications need a change of circumstances to succeed (//Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2005 SC//).
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Move to the next higher court ====
	+
	+	* Magistrate denied → Sessions Court (§483 BNSS).
	+	* Sessions denied → High Court (§483 BNSS).
	+	* High Court denied → Supreme Court (Article 136 SLP / Article 32 writ).
	+
	+	A bail rejection at one level does not bar the next. But the higher court will ask for change of circumstances since the earlier rejection — additional facts, completion of investigation, change in health, length of detention, prosecution's failure to file charge sheet within statutory period (60/90 days under §187 BNSS — gives default bail under §187(3)).
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Default bail (§187 BNSS) ====
	+
	+	If the charge sheet is not filed within 60 days (offences punishable up to 10 years) or 90 days (offences punishable above 10 years / death / life), the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail — the court must release on bond. This is one of the most powerful tools — file an application immediately on Day 61 / Day 91. //Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020 SC// reiterated this is a constitutional right under Article 21.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Habeas Corpus + writ jurisdiction ====
	+
	+	If detention is itself illegal (no warrant, no FIR, beyond statutory period without remand), file a habeas corpus writ in the High Court under Article 226. The court must hear it on priority and order production of the detained person.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — CPGRAMS (administrative grievance) ====
	+
	+	* https://pgportal.gov.in → Department of Justice → e-Courts / High Court of [State]
	+	* Useful for administrative grievances — non-listing of bail application, court staff misconduct, jail-side delays in releasing despite bail order, prolonged failure to issue release order.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	The District / Sessions / High Court is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005 for administrative and procedural matters. Each High Court has notified PIO rules for the subordinate courts. The jail/prison authority is also a public authority (under State Prisons Department).
	+
	+	RTI helps in bail cases when:
	+
	+	* Your bail application has been pending for weeks without listing — RTI to PIO at the Sessions / HC Registry for the next listed date, the bench, the file movement.
	+	* You want status of bail order communication to the jail — RTI to the jail superintendent's PIO for the date the release order was received.
	+	* Bail granted but not implemented (jail-side delay) — RTI to the Jailor / Superintendent asking for date of receipt of release order, current status, reasons for delay.
	+	* You want case status of the FIR (charge sheet status, IO name, witnesses examined) — RTI to the SHO / police PIO for non-investigative procedural information.
	+	* Court orders / certified copies are delayed — RTI to the Copying Section PIO.
	+	* You want to know whether the State has filed an appeal against bail granted to you — RTI to PIO of the Public Prosecutor's office.
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help in bail cases when:
	+
	+	* You want the court to grant or expedite bail — RTI cannot direct judicial action. File a mention application through your lawyer for early hearing.
	+	* You want to know why bail was denied — judicial reasoning is in the order itself; if absent, file a clarification or appeal, not RTI.
	+	* You want investigation case-diary or witness statements — exempt under §8(1)(g) (would endanger life/safety of source) and §8(1)(h) (would impede prosecution); apply under §207 BNSS instead, after charge sheet.
	+	* You want third-party financial / personal information about the complainant — exempt under §8(1)(j); use §91 BNSS process (court summons for production) instead.
	+	* You want to substitute or amend the bail application — use procedural application before the court, not RTI.
	+
	+	For the actual format, see [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|Write an effective RTI application — full template]] and pair it with [[:rti-for-fir-not-registered\|RTI when the police won't register your FIR]] for parallel investigation-status routes.
	+
	+	If you cannot afford a criminal lawyer, free legal aid is your right — see [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid / free lawyer]]. The DLSA / SLSA can assign a panel advocate for the bail leg itself, even before trial.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. I haven't been arrested yet but I'm scared. Can I get anticipatory bail "just in case"?\\
	+	You need a specific, reasonable apprehension of arrest — not generalised anxiety. An FIR registered against you, summons received, police visiting your home, complainant threatening police complaint — these qualify. Pure speculation does not. //Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020 SC// confirmed anticipatory bail can be of indefinite duration unless court limits it.
	+
	+	Q. The police arrested me without a warrant. Is that legal?\\
	+	Police can arrest without a warrant in cognizable offences under §35 BNSS. But for offences punishable up to 7 years, Arnesh Kumar (2014) requires the officer to record reasons for the arrest and serve a Notice u/s 35(3) BNSS first. Failure is itself a ground for bail and for departmental action against the officer.
	+
	+	Q. My surety is from another state. Will the court accept?\\
	+	Many courts insist on local sureties to ensure jurisdiction over the surety. If your surety is from another state, attach: (a) registered property documents in the surety's name; (b) lifetime affidavit; (c) ITR/income proof. Some judges still refuse — keep a local backup ready.
	+
	+	Q. I missed one hearing because I was hospitalised. Will my bail be cancelled?\\
	+	File an application immediately through your lawyer with the medical records (admission slip, discharge summary). Genuine medical absence is condoned; serial absence is not. //Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admin), 1978 SC// held bail cancellation requires "supervening circumstances" — so one medically-justified absence won't sink you, but get the application filed within days.
	+
	+	Q. The bail bond is too high — I can't arrange ₹5 lakh + sureties. What now?\\
	+	File a modification application before the same court asking for reduction of the bond amount and substitution of sureties. //Moti Ram v. State of MP, 1978 SC// (Justice Krishna Iyer's celebrated judgment) directed that bail conditions should not be so harsh as to amount to denial of bail. Cite this. Many courts reduce bond on a clean application.
	+
	+	Q. Can I leave India for work while on bail?\\
	+	Only with prior court permission. File an application well in advance (4-8 weeks), attach: invitation letter / employment contract / business need; itinerary; return ticket; family/property in India as anchor; willingness to deposit additional security. The court usually grants if there's no flight risk.
	+
	+	Q. The charge sheet wasn't filed in 60 days. Am I out automatically?\\
	+	You're entitled to default bail under §187(3) BNSS — but not automatic. You must file an application on Day 61 (or Day 91 for serious offences) before the charge sheet is filed. If you file on Day 60 or after the charge sheet hits, the right is lost. Set a calendar reminder the day arrest happens.
	+
	+	Q. The Magistrate denied my bail. Can I file again in the Magistrate Court?\\
	+	Yes — successive applications in the same court are allowed only with a change of circumstances (//Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2005 SC//). For a fresh fact pattern (e.g., charge sheet now filed), file again. Otherwise, move up to Sessions Court.
	+
	+	Q. My bail order says "deposit passport". Can I get it back after acquittal?\\
	+	Yes — file an application before the same court that took the passport, attaching the acquittal/discharge order. The court issues a release direction to the passport-keeping officer (usually the court's Nazarat). Process takes 1-4 weeks.
	+
	+	Q. Does the complainant have a right to oppose my bail?\\
	+	Yes — under the post-2009 framework retained in BNSS, the victim/complainant can intervene and be heard at the bail stage. The complainant cannot block bail by themselves, but the court will hear and weigh their objections.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to apply for legal aid / free lawyer (NALSA + DLSA)]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-fir-not-registered\|RTI when the police won't register your FIR]]
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|Write an effective RTI application — full template]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Bail law is a fast-moving Supreme Court territory — for serious cases (UAPA / PMLA / NDPS / POCSO), the latest year's rulings can change the test substantially. Verify current law with a senior criminal lawyer or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale citation.//
	+
	+	{{tag>bail-application bnss-2023 section-483 section-484 anticipatory-bail regular-bail interim-bail arnesh-kumar sanjay-chandra satender-kumar-antil sessions-court high-court magistrate-court surety bail-bond default-bail rti-court citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to pay court fees and buy stamp paper — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(court fees India,Court Fees Act 1870,e-stamp paper,SHCIL e-stamping,stamp paper denominations,civil suit court fee,ad valorem fee,fixed court fee,state court fee amendments,Maharashtra court fees,Delhi court fees,Karnataka court fees,UP court fees,how to pay court fee 2026,e-court fee,GRAS Maharashtra)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to paying court fees and buying stamp paper in India — Court Fees Act 1870, ad valorem vs fixed fees, e-stamp paper via SHCIL, GRAS, e-Court.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to pay court fees and buy stamp paper — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:pay-court-fees-stamp-paper-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to pay court fees and stamp paper 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. Court fees in India are governed by the Court Fees Act, 1870 (a Central Act, with each state having its own amending Act and First/Second Schedule). Two broad types: (1) ad valorem — a percentage of the value of the subject-matter (typically 1%–7.5% of suit value, capped state-wise), payable on plaints, written statements, appeals, and counter-claims; and (2) fixed — a flat amount for procedural applications (caveats, vakalatnama, certified copies). Pay via e-Court Fee stamp (issued by SHCIL — Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd) for higher values, or judicial stamp paper (₹10 / ₹50 / ₹100 / ₹500 denominations) for smaller amounts. Most states have moved to fully online payment via e-Stamping (SHCIL), GRAS (Maharashtra), e-GRAS (Rajasthan/Karnataka), e-Mitra (Rajasthan). Always carry the e-Stamp certificate's QR code for verification.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Ramesh's story — "₹50 lakh civil suit, ₹30,000 court fee paid online, hearing in 21 days" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Ramesh Kulkarni, 52, retired BSNL engineer in Pune. In December 2025 his elder brother died intestate. The family had a residential plot in Pimpri valued at ₹50 lakh. One cousin had quietly sold "his share" via a fraudulent power of attorney to a builder. Ramesh had to file a civil suit for declaration of title + partition + injunction in the Civil Court at Pune. His lawyer asked for ₹30,000 court fee + ₹15,000 lawyer fee for filing.//
	+
	+	> "The lawyer said he'd 'get the court fee from his stamp vendor'. I asked him to give me the breakdown. The Court Fees (Maharashtra Amendment) Act 2018 caps ad valorem at ₹3 lakh — for our suit value of ₹50 lakh, the actual fee was ₹30,000 (around 0.6% — Maharashtra has a sliding scale). I went home, opened https://gras.mahakosh.gov.in (Government Receipt Accounting System), registered with PAN + mobile, paid ₹30,000 by net banking, downloaded the GRAS challan with QR code. Took me 25 minutes. Lawyer's stamp vendor would have charged ₹600 'service charge' — the GRAS portal charges ₹0. Filed on 18 December. First hearing on 8 January 2026 — 21 days later. My lawyer was annoyed I cut out his stamp vendor; I told him my brother is also in court because of a fake POA from a 'trusted vendor.'"
	+
	+	—Ramesh, January 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	Roughly ₹4,800 crore in court fees was collected across all Indian courts in FY 2024-25 (NJDG annual report). Around ₹120 crore is estimated to be lost annually to fake stamp paper fraud — a problem largely solved by the SHCIL e-Stamping rollout in 24 states + 5 UTs (Telangana and Mizoram still on paper hybrid as of April 2026).
	+
	+	===== What this is — and which fee applies when =====
	+
	+	A court fee is a tax paid to the State exchequer for the privilege of invoking a court's jurisdiction. The legal anchor is the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Central) and each state's amending Act. The Act has two schedules:
	+
	+	* Schedule I — ad valorem fees. Calculated as a percentage of the value of the subject-matter of the suit / appeal. Apply to plaints, written statements with counter-claims, memorandum of appeals, applications to set aside an arbitral award.
	+	* Schedule II — fixed fees. Flat amounts for: caveat (Article 1A), vakalatnama (Article 10), certified copies (Article 9), probate/letters of administration (Article 11), affidavit (Article 4), petitions under specific Acts.
	+
	+	A stamp paper / stamp duty (under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 + state amendments) is a separate concept — paid on instruments like sale deeds, gift deeds, lease deeds, partnership deeds, affidavits. Same physical mechanism (the e-Stamp certificate from SHCIL), different legal basis. Don't confuse: court fee goes to the state for adjudication; stamp duty goes to the state for the instrument itself.
	+
	+	* Court fee → Court Fees Act 1870 → State Schedule I/II → paid via judicial stamp paper or e-Court Fee (SHCIL).
	+	* Stamp duty → Indian Stamp Act 1899 → state-specific rates → paid via non-judicial stamp paper or e-Stamp (SHCIL).
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Calculate the value of the subject matter ====
	+
	+	This determines whether you pay ad valorem or fixed, and how much.
	+
	+	* Money suit: value = the amount claimed.
	+	* Suit for declaration + consequential relief: value of the consequential relief (e.g., partition share value, possession value).
	+	* Partition suit: value = your share's market value (not the whole property's).
	+	* Injunction: if pure injunction, fixed fee under Schedule II; if injunction + ancillary relief, ad valorem on the relief value.
	+	* Specific performance: value of the contract.
	+	* Eviction: annual rent payable (state-specific cap — Maharashtra caps at 12 months' rent).
	+	* Probate / Letters of Administration: value of the estate (Article 11 of Schedule I — sliding scale; in Maharashtra capped at ₹75,000 for estates above ₹50 lakh).
	+	* Writ petition / PIL: typically fixed fee in Schedule II (₹50–₹500 depending on state); higher if monetary relief sought.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Identify the correct state's Court Fees Act ====
	+
	+	Each state has amended the 1870 Act. As of 2026:
	+
	+	* Maharashtra: Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 (max ad valorem cap ₹3 lakh per Court Fees (Maharashtra Amendment) Act 2018).
	+	* Tamil Nadu: Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
	+	* Karnataka: Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
	+	* Kerala: Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.
	+	* Andhra Pradesh / Telangana: AP Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (Telangana adopted with state amendments).
	+	* West Bengal: Bengal Court Fees Amendments (highest in India for some categories).
	+	* Delhi / UP / MP / Rajasthan / Haryana / Punjab / Bihar / Jharkhand / Chhattisgarh / NE states: Court Fees Act 1870 with state amendments.
	+
	+	Find your state's Schedule on the High Court website (every High Court publishes the consolidated court fee schedule). Or visit the District Court Stamp Office in person.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Decide the payment mode ====
	+
	+	* Below ₹500 fee value: ordinary judicial stamp paper from a licensed stamp vendor at the court complex. Denominations: ₹1, ₹2, ₹5, ₹10, ₹20, ₹50, ₹100.
	+	* ₹500 to ₹50,000: judicial stamp paper of higher denomination, OR e-Stamp certificate via SHCIL.
	+	* Above ₹50,000: mandatory e-Stamp certificate in most states (since 2013-2017 phase-out of physical stamp paper above ₹50,000 / ₹500 in some states like Karnataka).
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Buy e-Stamp certificate via SHCIL ====
	+
	+	* Open https://www.shcilestamp.com → choose your state → "Online Users" → register with PAN + Aadhaar OTP.
	+	* Choose the document description (e.g., "Plaint", "Caveat under §148A CPC", "Vakalatnama").
	+	* Enter the consideration value, calculate the court fee.
	+	* Pay by net banking / UPI / debit card. Service charge: ₹10 + 1.18% (capped at ₹150 for high-value).
	+	* Download the e-Stamp certificate — has a unique 17-digit Certificate Number, QR code, and is verifiable on https://www.shcilestamp.com → "Verify e-Stamp".
	+	* Print on plain A4 paper, attach to your plaint / petition.
	+
	+	If your state doesn't use SHCIL e-Stamp for court fees specifically, use the alternative state portal:
	+
	+	* Maharashtra: GRAS at https://gras.mahakosh.gov.in (court fee head 0030).
	+	* Karnataka: K2 (Khajane-2) at https://k2.karnataka.gov.in.
	+	* Rajasthan: e-GRAS at https://egras.rajasthan.gov.in.
	+	* Kerala: e-Treasury at https://etreasury.kerala.gov.in.
	+	* Tamil Nadu: e-Court Fee via Stock Holding & SHCIL specifically.
	+	* Delhi: Delhi e-Court Fee via SHCIL — fully online since 2014.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Buy from a licensed stamp vendor (offline route) ====
	+
	+	* Visit the District Court complex or a notified vendor location (Treasury / Sub-Registrar's office).
	+	* Identify yourself with PAN + photo ID.
	+	* Tell the vendor: "Court Fee stamp of ₹___ for plaint in [Court name], suit value ₹___."
	+	* The vendor issues the stamp paper with the buyer's name printed/written + date + serial number.
	+	* Pay cash or UPI. Vendor charges 1% commission (capped per state rules).
	+	* Verify the stamp paper is genuine: serial number traceable on the state stamp portal, watermark visible, vendor's seal intact.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Affix to the plaint / petition correctly ====
	+
	+	* e-Stamp certificate: print on A4, staple to the cover page of the plaint. The court will verify the QR code at filing.
	+	* Judicial stamp paper: affix on the plaint cover (each sheet < ₹100; for higher, use one consolidated higher-denomination sheet). Cancel using the court's seal at filing — done by the office staff to prevent reuse.
	+	* Carry two photocopies of the e-Stamp / stamp paper alongside the original.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — File the case at the court filing counter ====
	+
	+	* Submit plaint + e-Stamp + supporting documents + vakalatnama + process fee.
	+	* The court office will: (a) verify the court fee against the suit valuation, (b) issue a deficiency note if short, (c) accept and assign a CNR (Case Number Record) number.
	+	* Save the CNR — it's your unique case ID for life across district court, HC, SC.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Refund of court fee (if applicable) ====
	+
	+	* If the suit is withdrawn before issuance of summons under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC + §16 of Court Fees Act, you can claim refund up to half the fee in many states.
	+	* If the suit is dismissed for default before first hearing: full refund in some states (Maharashtra, Karnataka).
	+	* If the matter goes to mediation / Lok Adalat and is settled: refund of the full court fee under §21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 + Lok Adalat Regulations.
	+	* Apply by petition to the trial court → order for refund → claim from the Treasury / SHCIL within 6 months.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee schedule (illustrative — verify your state) =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Type of proceeding \| Court fee (illustrative) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Money suit, value ₹1,00,000 \| Maharashtra: ₹6,000 (6%) \|
	+	\| (ad valorem) \| Delhi: ₹2,200 + ₹17 per ₹100 \|
	+	\| \| Karnataka: ₹6,500 (sliding scale) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Civil suit, value ₹50,00,000 \| Maharashtra: ₹30,000 (capped) \|
	+	\| (ad valorem with state caps) \| (Court Fees Maha Amendment Act 2018 \|
	+	\| \| caps ad valorem at ₹3 lakh) \|
	+	\| \| Delhi: progressive, ~₹2.5 lakh \|
	+	\| \| Karnataka: ₹75,000 (capped at 1.5%) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Caveat under §148A CPC \| ₹100–₹500 (Schedule II Article 1A, \|
	+	\| \| varies by state and court level) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Vakalatnama (Schedule II Art. 10) \| ₹5–₹50 per advocate (state-specific) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Certified copy (Schedule II Art. 9)\| ₹2–₹5 per page + folio fee ₹3 \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Affidavit (Schedule II Art. 4) \| ₹10–₹50 (judicial) + ₹20–₹100 \|
	+	\| \| (notary stamp duty — separate) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Probate (Schedule I Art. 11) \| Sliding 2-7.5% of estate value; \|
	+	\| \| Maharashtra capped at ₹75,000; \|
	+	\| \| Delhi capped at ₹75,000 \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Writ petition (HC, civil) \| ₹50–₹500 (state-specific Schedule II)\|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Special Leave Petition (Supreme \| ₹250 court fee + process fee + \|
	+	\| Court) \| filing fee per SC Rules 2013 \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to State Stamp Department \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	\| (rate verification, etc.) \| \|
	+	+------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons your court fee / stamp paper goes wrong =====
	+
	+	* Wrong state's stamp paper. A Maharashtra judicial stamp paper is invalid in Karnataka and vice versa. Always buy from the state where the court sits.
	+	* Insufficient court fee — "deficit court fee". If you under-pay, the office issues a deficiency note. You must pay the balance within the time given (usually 7-15 days) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, or the plaint is rejected.
	+	* Old stamp paper used. Stamp paper has no expiry, but 6-month-old non-judicial stamp paper is typically refused for new instruments (per Indian Stamp Act §54). Judicial stamp paper has no such bar but courts prefer fresh.
	+	* Stamp paper bought in someone else's name. §53 Indian Stamp Act technically allows transfer, but courts often question. Buy in the litigant's name only.
	+	* Fake stamp paper from unauthorised vendor. The Telgi scam (2003) led to massive crackdowns; SHCIL e-Stamp solves this. Never buy stamp paper from random shops near court.
	+	* Court fee paid but no QR-code verification possible. Some old e-Stamp certificates pre-2017 lack QR codes. Get a duplicate / fresh certificate.
	+	* Wrong head of account on GRAS / e-GRAS challan. Court fee goes to head 0030 — Stamps and Registration, sub-head 0030-02-103-Court Fees. Stamp duty goes to a different sub-head. Wrong head means the court won't accept.
	+	* Forgot to round up. Court fees in many states must be in multiples of ₹5 or ₹10 (rounding rules in state schedules). Always round UP.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Court Filing Counter / Sheristedar ====
	+
	+	* The Sheristedar (court office head clerk) is your first point of contact for fee disputes. Most issues are resolved verbally — show your calculation worksheet.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Stamp Office / Sub-Registrar (state) ====
	+
	+	* For incorrect e-Stamp certificate, refund of unused stamp paper, vendor licence complaints — visit the District Stamp Office or State Inspector General of Registration (IGR).
	+	* Time-bound refund process under each state's Stamp Refund Rules (typically 6 months from non-use).
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — SHCIL helpdesk (for e-Stamp issues) ====
	+
	+	* Toll-free 1800-200-7575 (SHCIL e-Stamping helpdesk).
	+	* Email customercare.estamp@stockholding.com
	+	* For: failed transactions, certificate not generated despite payment, duplicate certificate request.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Collector / District Magistrate ====
	+
	+	* For systematic vendor fraud or stamp paper shortage, write to the District Collector (who is also the Collector of Stamps under §2(9) of the Indian Stamp Act).
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — High Court (writ jurisdiction) ====
	+
	+	* If the court refuses to accept e-Stamp despite valid QR verification, or imposes excessive fee not backed by state Schedule, file a writ petition under Article 226 / 227.
	+	* Famous precedents: A.P. Industrial Infra Corp. v. State of AP (2024) struck down arbitrary court fee enhancement.
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	The Stamp Department of every state, the SHCIL (limited — only for its government-mandated functions), and the District Court Establishment are public authorities under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* You want the list of licensed stamp vendors in your district to avoid fake-vendor scams — RTI to the District Collector / Stamp Office.
	+	* Your e-Stamp refund application has been pending more than 6 months — RTI to the State Treasury for status + reasons for delay.
	+	* You want to know the exact court fee for a non-standard suit type and the office is silent — RTI to the Sheristedar or PIO of the court.
	+	* You want the state's current consolidated Court Fees Schedule with all amendments — RTI to the State Law Department or High Court Registry.
	+	* A stamp vendor charged you commission above the prescribed cap — RTI to the Stamp Office for the cap notification, then complaint to vendor licensing authority.
	+	* You want statistics on court fee collected and refunded — RTI to State IGR (useful for litigation cost analysis).
	+
	+	See the dedicated guide: [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — full template]].
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You want to reduce the court fee itself for your suit — that's a judicial determination by the trial court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, not an RTI matter.
	+	* You want a legal opinion on whether your suit valuation is correct — consult an advocate or use [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|free legal aid]].
	+	* For third-party litigant data (someone else's case, fee paid) — exempt under §8(1)(j) RTI Act.
	+	* SHCIL's commercial transactions beyond government-mandated stamping — SHCIL is a private company except in its e-Stamping role.
	+	* Disputes about stamp duty (not court fee) on a sale deed — those go to the Collector under §47A Indian Stamp Act, not RTI.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Can I use ₹500 stamp paper for a ₹100 fee, hoping for refund?\\
	+	No — the excess is forfeited. Buy the exact denomination. Stamp papers are sold in standard denominations; combine smaller ones if needed.
	+
	+	Q. My case settled in mediation. Can I claim back the court fee?\\
	+	Yes — under §21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 + state Lok Adalat rules, the entire court fee is refundable when a case is referred to and settled in Lok Adalat. Apply to the trial court within 6 months of the settlement order.
	+
	+	Q. Is there a "first appearance fee" beyond the court fee?\\
	+	Yes — most states have a process fee (for issuing summons, ₹50-₹200 per defendant), typing fee, commissioner's fee (if a commission is appointed), and caveat fee. These are separate from the ad valorem court fee.
	+
	+	Q. I'm a senior citizen / SC/ST / woman litigant. Do I get a fee waiver?\\
	+	Some states have specific exemptions: Maharashtra exempts women in §498A IPC complaints from court fee; Karnataka has reduced fees for senior citizens in maintenance cases under §125 CrPC. Check your state schedule. Universal route: Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 §12 — free legal aid + court fee waiver for SC/ST, women, children, disabled, victims of trafficking, and those earning below ₹3 lakh / ₹5 lakh (varies by state).
	+
	+	Q. The vendor wrote my name in pencil — is that valid?\\
	+	No. Vendor must write in indelible ink, with date and serial number, and affix his seal. If only pencil — refuse and demand correction or refund.
	+
	+	Q. I lost my e-Stamp certificate before filing. Can I get a duplicate?\\
	+	Yes — login to SHCIL portal → "View / Reprint Certificate" → enter the 17-digit certificate number. If you don't have the number, the original buyer can recover it via PAN + transaction date.
	+
	+	Q. Are court fees applicable in Family Court?\\
	+	Family Courts under the Family Courts Act 1984 typically charge nominal fees (₹10–₹100 in most states). Mutual consent divorce, maintenance, custody — all have flat fees. Some states waive entirely for women litigants.
	+
	+	Q. Can I pay court fee in cash at the court?\\
	+	No. Court fee is paid via stamp paper / e-Stamp / GRAS challan only. Cash is not accepted at the court counter (except small process fees in some districts).
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — full template]]
	+	* [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to get free legal aid / a free lawyer in 2026]]
	+	* [[:transfer-property-gift-deed-2026\|How to transfer property by gift deed in 2026]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Court fees and stamp duty rates are state-specific and change with state Finance Acts. Verify your current rate on your state IGR / High Court website or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>court-fees stamp-paper court-fees-act-1870 indian-stamp-act-1899 e-stamp shcil ad-valorem judicial-stamp gras-maharashtra k2-karnataka schedule-i schedule-ii citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to apply for a Completion Certificate (CC) — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(completion certificate 2026,how to get CC builder,completion certificate vs occupancy certificate,CC from BMC,BBMP completion certificate,MCD CC Delhi,architect completion certificate,Form A1 Maharashtra,§44 MR&TP Act,RERA complaint completion certificate,builder not giving CC,as-built drawings,sanctioned plan deviation,§17 RERA,partial completion certificate)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to getting your Completion Certificate (CC) from the Municipal Corporation — what it is, how it differs from OC, the architect's role, fees.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to apply for a Completion Certificate (CC) — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:apply-completion-certificate-cc-builder-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to apply for Completion Certificate 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. A Completion Certificate (CC) is the document the Municipal Corporation / Planning Authority issues confirming that the building has been constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. It is separate from the Occupancy Certificate (OC) — CC certifies what was built, OC certifies that it is fit to occupy. The builder/promoter (or owner if self-built) applies through the licensed architect within 30 days of completing construction, attaching the architect's Form A1 (Maharashtra) / Form 13 (Karnataka) / Form C (Delhi) certifying as-built compliance with the sanctioned plan, plus structural stability, fire NOC and lift fitness. Apply online at the same Municipal Corp portals as for OC. If the builder sits on the CC for years — file a State RERA complaint under §11(4)(b) and §17(1). RTI helps you get the inspection-file status.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Vandana's story — "2-year CC delay; RERA complaint produced the file in 90 days" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Vandana Iyer, 36, dental surgeon in Thane (Maharashtra). Bought a 3BHK in a 22-storey project in Ghodbunder Road, possession April 2024. Builder gave OC in November 2024 (after a part-OC for lower floors), but no CC for two more years.//
	+
	+	> "I assumed CC and OC were the same. They're not. Our society started the deemed conveyance process in early 2026 — the lawyer asked for the CC. Builder kept saying 'CC is just a formality, it'll come'. My husband filed an RTI on 12 January 2026 to TMC (Thane Municipal Corp) Building Permission Department: ₹10 court-fee stamp, hand-delivered. Reply 7 February (26 days): 'Application for Completion Certificate dated 04.10.2024 received. Architect's Form A1 dated 28.09.2024 enclosed. Site verification on 22.11.2024 noted: (i) two extra parking floors built without sanction, (ii) compound wall extended 2.4 m beyond plot boundary, (iii) terrace lift overrun height 1.1 m above sanctioned. Builder requested compounding by application dated 18.12.2024. No payment received. File pending.' That gave us everything. We filed a MahaRERA complaint on 18 February under §11(4)(b) and §14(3) — fee ₹5,000 online. Hearing 12 April. RERA directed the builder to deposit compounding within 45 days. Builder dragged it but eventually paid ₹6.8 lakh. Fresh inspection 12 June, CC issued 18 July 2026 — 5 months end-to-end. The conveyance application is now moving."
	+
	+	—Vandana, August 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	A 2024 MahaRERA report noted that over 35% of completed projects in Maharashtra lacked a Completion Certificate even after OC issuance — the pattern is: builder rushes OC (so allottees move in and stop pushing), then quietly defers CC because compounding for plan deviations is expensive. Buyers find out only when they try to convey, sell or refinance.
	+
	+	===== What a Completion Certificate is — and why it matters =====
	+
	+	A Completion Certificate (CC) is the formal document from the local planning authority (Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Cantonment Board, Development Authority) certifying that:
	+
	+	* The building has been completed strictly as per the sanctioned plan.
	+	* No deviations exist from the approved drawings, FSI, setbacks, height, parking, common areas.
	+	* The architect of record has personally verified and certified the as-built construction.
	+	* Structural stability, fire safety and lift fitness are independently certified.
	+
	+	This is different from OC. OC says "you can move in"; CC says "what is built matches what was approved." A building can technically have OC without full CC in some states (where compounding-pending matters are noted but services-clearance is given), but the legal trail is incomplete until both exist.
	+
	+	==== Why CC matters separately from OC ====
	+
	+	* Society conveyance / deemed conveyance under §11 MOFA 1963 (Maharashtra) and equivalent state laws requires CC as part of the title chain.
	+	* Sub-registrar registration of the conveyance deed often requires CC for title clearance.
	+	* Bank refinance / loan against property — most lenders ask for CC alongside OC.
	+	* High-value resale — buyers' lawyers ask for CC to confirm no plan deviations exist that could trigger future demolition or compounding demands.
	+	* Property tax mutation — some municipalities only allow full transfer of property tax record once CC is on file.
	+	* Plan modification later — if you ever want to add a floor, change use, or merge flats, the existing CC is the baseline; without CC the file is treated as incomplete.
	+	* Insurance — large commercial / institutional insurers ask for both OC and CC.
	+
	+	The legal basis is the same as OC: §44 MR&TP Act 1966 (Maharashtra), §310 Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976, §347 Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, and Schedule 1 of the National Building Code 2016. Under §17(1) RERA Act 2016, the promoter must obtain CC and OC and hand both over to allottees / association.
	+
	+	==== CC vs OC vs Part-CC vs deemed CC ====
	+
	+	* CC (full): entire building, all floors, all wings — as-built matches sanctioned plan.
	+	* Part-CC: certified for completed wings/floors in a phased project; remaining wings get separate Part-CCs and a final CC ties them up.
	+	* Deemed CC: in some states, if the Municipal Corp does not act within statutory SLA (e.g. 30 days under DCPR 2034 in Maharashtra), the CC is deemed granted — but you must still obtain a written confirmation; banks rarely accept "deemed" alone.
	+	* OC: issued after CC + services clearance + fire/lift NOC. Logically OC presupposes CC; in practice some states bundle them as "OC-cum-CC" (Delhi MCD often does this).
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Confirm who applies ====
	+
	+	* Builder project (RERA-registered): the promoter through the project's licensed architect.
	+	* Self-built independent house: the owner through his licensed architect / engineer.
	+	* Society after redevelopment: the developer under the development agreement; in dispute, society can move RERA to direct the developer.
	+	* Buyer of an under-construction flat: cannot directly apply; must push the builder.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Architect prepares the CC application ====
	+
	+	The architect (registered with the Council of Architecture under the Architects Act 1972) must:
	+
	+	* Visit the site personally and verify the as-built construction against the sanctioned plan.
	+	* Prepare as-built drawings in 4 sets (PDF + DWG digital copies).
	+	* Sign and stamp the architect's completion certificate (Form A1 in Maharashtra, Form 13 in Karnataka, Form C in Delhi).
	+	* Take professional liability for the certification — false certification is a Council of Architecture disciplinary offence and a criminal offence under §47 MR&TP Act (Maharashtra) with up to 3 years imprisonment.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Assemble the document set ====
	+
	+	* Architect's completion certificate (Form A1 / Form 13 / Form C).
	+	* As-built drawings (4 sets).
	+	* Sanctioned building plan (certified copy).
	+	* Commencement Certificate issued before construction.
	+	* Structural stability certificate by an empanelled structural engineer.
	+	* Fire NOC from Chief Fire Officer (mandatory for buildings >15 m or commercial).
	+	* Lift inspection certificate from Chief Electrical Inspector.
	+	* Electrical safety certificate (licensed electrical contractor).
	+	* Rainwater harvesting + STP commissioning + solar water heater compliance certificates as applicable.
	+	* Labour cess (1% of construction value) payment proof under BOCW Cess Act 1996.
	+	* Property tax zero-dues certificate during construction.
	+	* No-encroachment certificate from Town Planning section.
	+	* CA-certified construction cost statement (some states use this for compounding calculation).
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — File online via the city portal ====
	+
	+	* Mumbai BMC: https://autodcr.mcgm.gov.in → "Apply for Completion Certificate" → upload + pay scrutiny fee.
	+	* Pune PMC / PCMC: https://buildingpermission.pmc.gov.in (PMC); https://www.pcmcindia.gov.in (PCMC) → BPMS portal → "CC application".
	+	* Thane TMC: https://thanecity.gov.in → Building Permission → "Completion Certificate".
	+	* Bengaluru BBMP: https://sasthra.karnataka.gov.in → "Building Completion Certificate". SLA 30 days under Sakala Act.
	+	* Delhi MCD: https://mcdonline.nic.in → Building Department → "Occupancy / Completion Certificate" (combined application).
	+	* Hyderabad GHMC: https://dpms.ghmc.gov.in → "Completion Certificate".
	+	* Chennai (CMDA / Greater Chennai Corp): https://onlinecmdams.tn.gov.in → "Completion / Occupancy".
	+	* Kolkata KMC: https://www.kmcgov.in → e-Services → Building → "Completion Certificate".
	+	* Ahmedabad AMC: https://ahmedabadcity.gov.in → ODPS → "BU Permission" (Building Use, equivalent to CC + OC in Gujarat).
	+	* Noida / Greater Noida: https://noidaauthorityonline.com → Building Department.
	+
	+	The portal generates an inward number — keep it for RTI follow-up.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Pay the scrutiny fee ====
	+
	+	Indicative 2026 slabs:
	+
	+	* Mumbai BMC: ₹15/sq m of built-up area + 18% GST.
	+	* Pune PMC: ₹10/sq m + GST.
	+	* Bengaluru BBMP: ₹6-8/sq m (slab-based).
	+	* Delhi MCD: ₹5-12/sq m (zone-dependent).
	+	* Compounding penalty (for any deviation found later): 5x to 25x normal scrutiny fee, depending on % deviation and city compounding policy.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Site verification by Municipal Corp ====
	+
	+	* Within 15-30 days of fee payment, the Building Inspector / Junior Engineer / Town Planner visits.
	+	* They cross-check architect's as-built drawings against the actual structure.
	+	* Random sample measurement of flats, common areas, parking, terrace, fire refuge, lift well, mumty.
	+	* Any deviation beyond ±3% tolerance is logged.
	+	* Inspection report uploaded to portal — usually within 7-10 days.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Compounding or rectification of deviations ====
	+
	+	* Minor deviations (≤5% FSI, internal partition changes, balcony glazing): compoundable on payment of penalty.
	+	* Major deviations (encroachment on margins, illegal floor, FSI breach >10%, fire-refuge missing): may require demolition; periodic regularisation schemes (Karnataka Akrama-Sakrama, Maharashtra Compounded Structures Policy under DCPR 2034, Delhi PM-UDAY) sometimes allow regularisation.
	+	* Structural / fire non-compliance: physical correction only — no compounding.
	+
	+	The compounding amount is paid by the builder; he cannot pass this on to allottees (specifically barred under §13 RERA).
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — CC issued; verify and use ====
	+
	+	* Once compliance is confirmed, the Municipal Commissioner / Town Planner signs the CC.
	+	* Downloadable as a digitally-signed PDF from the portal — equally valid under the IT Act §4 + §5.
	+	* Builder must hand over CC to allottees / society within 15 days under §17(1) RERA.
	+	* Society uses CC for: deemed conveyance application, society registration finalisation, bank loan against society property, future maintenance contracts.
	+	* Individual flat owners use CC for: resale documentation, refinance, plan modification applications.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline + statutory-SLA table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Architect's CC certificate fee \| ₹15,000–₹50,000 (architect prof.fee) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Municipal Corp scrutiny fee \| ₹5–₹15 per sq m built-up area \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Structural stability certificate \| ₹10,000–₹25,000 (engineer fee) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Fire NOC fee \| ₹2/sq m to ₹6/sq m (city-specific) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lift inspection fee \| ₹3,000–₹8,000 per lift \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Compounding penalty (minor dev.) \| 5x to 10x scrutiny fee \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Compounding penalty (major dev.) \| 15x to 25x scrutiny fee \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Statutory SLA — Maharashtra DCPR \| 30 days, deemed grant if no action \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Statutory SLA — Karnataka Sakala \| 30 days under Sakala Act 2011 \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Statutory SLA — Delhi \| 30 days under Building Bye-laws 2016 \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RERA complaint fee (allottee) \| ₹5,000 (single project) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to Municipal Corp PIO \| ₹10 (court fee stamp / IPO / cash) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons your CC is stuck =====
	+
	+	* Builder hasn't applied at all. No application after construction completed because builder anticipates failing the deviation test. RTI to Building Permission PIO confirms.
	+	* Architect refusing to sign Form A1 / Form 13. The professional liability is severe (criminal under §47 MR&TP and Architects Act §32). Many architects refuse if deviations exist.
	+	* Plan deviations — extra floor, wider footprint, parking-to-shop conversion, missing fire refuge, lift overrun above sanctioned height.
	+	* Structural stability certificate not issued — empanelled engineer flagged structural concerns that need physical rectification.
	+	* Fire NOC pending. State Fire Services queue is typically 30-90 days; older buildings often fail current fire-safety norms requiring retrofitting.
	+	* Lift inspection pending. Chief Electrical Inspector / Lift Inspector is centralised; backlog of 3-6 months in Mumbai and Pune.
	+	* STP not commissioned / RWH not installed — clearances from State Pollution Control Board.
	+	* Labour cess unpaid — builder forgot to remit; until paid, file is held.
	+	* Property tax dues during construction.
	+	* Sanctioned plan amendment pending — builder applied for plan revision (to legitimise deviations) and that revision file itself is stuck.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Written reminder to builder under §17 RERA ====
	+
	+	* Send a registered AD letter (and email + WhatsApp + builder's RERA portal grievance) quoting §11(4)(b) and §17(1) of the RERA Act 2016: "Promoter shall obtain the completion certificate or the occupancy certificate, or both, as applicable, from the relevant competent authority and make it available to the allottees individually or to the association of allottees."
	+	* Give 30 days. Keep the postal receipt.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — RTI to Municipal Corporation ====
	+
	+	* File RTI to PIO — Building Permission Department of your Municipal Corp.
	+	* Ask: (i) date of CC application, (ii) name of architect, (iii) date and findings of site inspection, (iv) list of deviations noted, (v) compounding amount demanded and paid status, (vi) current file location with officer name and designation, (vii) reason for delay if any.
	+	* 30-day reply window under §7(1) RTI Act 2005.
	+	* State first appeal within 30 days of reply (or non-reply); Information Commission within 90 days of first appeal order.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — State RERA complaint ====
	+
	+	* File at your state RERA portal: maharera.maharashtra.gov.in, rera.karnataka.gov.in, rera.delhi.gov.in, upreraconsumer.in, tnrera.in, rera.telangana.gov.in, rera.kerala.gov.in, rera.rajasthan.gov.in, wbrera.in, gujrera.gujarat.gov.in.
	+	* Fee ₹5,000 (allottee, single project).
	+	* Cite §11(4)(b), §14(3), §17(1), §18(1) — interest for delay.
	+	* Orders typically within 60 days under §29.
	+	* Detailed walkthrough at [[:file-rera-complaint-2026\|How to file a RERA complaint — 2026 guide]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Consumer Forum (DCDRC) ====
	+
	+	* If your loss is quantifiable (rent paid for alternate house, loan EMI on unusable flat, conveyance delay loss), file under §35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
	+	* Pecuniary jurisdiction: District Commission up to ₹50 lakh, State Commission ₹50 lakh – ₹2 crore, NCDRC above ₹2 crore.
	+	* Online portal: https://edaakhil.nic.in.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — High Court writ ====
	+
	+	* If the Municipal Corp itself sits on a clean file beyond statutory SLA, a writ of mandamus under Article 226 forces a decision within a court-set timeline.
	+	* Particularly effective in Maharashtra where the deemed-grant provision under DCPR 2034 can be invoked.
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	The Municipal Corporation, State RERA, Council of Architecture, Fire Services, Electrical Inspectorate are all public authorities under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* The builder claims CC is "applied" but you have no proof — RTI to Building Permission PIO confirms application date and inspection status.
	+	* Inspection has happened but the report is not shared — RTI extracts the inspection report and deviation list.
	+	* Compounding amount has been demanded but builder is hiding the figure — RTI gets the official demand letter.
	+	* Architect hasn't signed Form A1 — RTI to Council of Architecture confirms whether the architect is registered and current; in some states reveals disciplinary complaints.
	+	* Fire NOC / lift inspection is "pending" indefinitely — RTI to Fire Services / Electrical Inspectorate PIO names the officer holding the file.
	+	* You want to verify the CC is genuine before purchase — RTI to Municipal Corp PIO confirms whether CC bearing that number exists in the register.
	+	* The plan revision file is stuck — RTI traces the revision file location and reason for delay.
	+
	+	See also: [[:rti-for-building-plan-approval-delay\|RTI for delayed building plan approval — copy-ready template]].
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You want the CC to be issued — RTI is information-fetching, not a directive. Use State RERA + writ for actual issuance.
	+	* You disagree with the compounding amount — that's a quasi-judicial decision; appeal to the Municipal Tribunal.
	+	* Builder hasn't even applied — RTI returns "no record" and you must escalate to RERA for §17 violation.
	+	* You want compensation for delay — RTI gets you the file; §18 RERA + Consumer Forum awards money.
	+	* The architect is being asked to falsely certify — that's a professional ethics matter; complain to the Council of Architecture, not RTI.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Builder gave OC but won't give CC. Is OC alone enough?\\
	+	For everyday use (electricity, water, property tax) yes — OC alone suffices. For conveyance, refinance, sale to a fastidious buyer, or any plan modification, you need CC too. Push the builder via §17 RERA — RERA orders are typically issued within 60 days.
	+
	+	Q. The architect says he can't sign Form A1 because there are deviations. What now?\\
	+	The architect is right to refuse. The builder must either (i) physically rectify the deviations, or (ii) pay compounding to the Municipal Corp and apply for plan revision to legalise. Only after one of these can the architect sign. Push the builder to choose.
	+
	+	Q. What if my building has Part-CC but no full CC?\\
	+	Part-CC is valid for the certified portion. Full CC is needed for society conveyance and any later structural alteration. The builder is obliged to convert Part-CCs into a full CC under §17 RERA — typically within 24 months of the last Part-CC.
	+
	+	Q. Is the architect responsible if the CC is later found false?\\
	+	Yes. False certification is a disciplinary offence under §32 of the Architects Act 1972 and a criminal offence under §47 MR&TP Act (Maharashtra) with up to 3 years imprisonment. The Council of Architecture can suspend or cancel registration. Allottees can complain to the Council via https://www.coa.gov.in.
	+
	+	Q. Can the society apply for CC if the builder won't?\\
	+	Generally no — sanctioned plan is in builder's name. Exception: if society has obtained deemed conveyance under §11 MOFA 1963 (Maharashtra), it can apply. Other states should move RERA under §14 to direct the promoter.
	+
	+	Q. What's the difference between BU Permission (Gujarat) and CC?\\
	+	In Gujarat, BU (Building Use) Permission under the Gujarat Town Planning Act 1976 combines what other states call CC + OC. Functionally equivalent for legal use.
	+
	+	Q. Does CC expire?\\
	+	No, CC is permanent. But if you make significant alterations (structural changes, added floor, change of use), a fresh sanctioned plan + fresh CC is required.
	+
	+	Q. Can I sell my flat without CC if I have OC?\\
	+	Yes legally — OC is sufficient for sale registration. But sophisticated buyers' lawyers will ask for CC and may negotiate down or refuse. Disclose the CC pending status in writing in the sale deed.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:apply-occupancy-certificate-oc-builder-2026\|Occupancy Certificate (OC) — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:complain-builder-not-handing-over-2026\|Builder not handing over flat — escalation guide]]
	+	* [[:file-rera-complaint-2026\|How to file a RERA complaint — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-building-plan-approval-delay\|RTI for delayed building plan approval]]
	+	* [[:apply-society-noc-2026\|Society NOC — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:apply-shop-establishment-licence-2026\|Shop & Establishment licence — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — master directory]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Building bye-laws, RERA fee scales and compounding rates change every year — verify on your Municipal Corp portal or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>completion-certificate cc-builder cc-mumbai cc-bengaluru cc-delhi rera-complaint section-17-rera section-44-mrtp-act bbmp-cc bmc-cc mcd-cc form-a1 architect-certificate citizen-guide help-first builder-delay rti-municipal-corporation 2026}}

How to apply for Succession Certificate — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Succession Certificate,how to apply succession certificate,Indian Succession Act 1925 §370,District Civil Court succession,bank deposits above ₹1.5 lakh,deceased shares mutual funds claim,intestate succession,civil court petition Form SC-1,court fee 2-3% asset value,newspaper publication 30 days,Reliance shares deceased claim,RTA KFin Tech CAMS,Hindu Succession Act intestate,probate vs succession certificate,no Will deceased)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to applying for a Succession Certificate from the District Civil Court — required for transferring a deceased person's bank deposits above.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to apply for Succession Certificate — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:apply-succession-certificate-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to apply for Succession Certificate 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. A Succession Certificate is a court order under §370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 issued by the District Civil Court (or High Court for very large estates) authorising one or more legal heirs to receive the deceased's movable assets — bank deposits, fixed deposits, shares, mutual funds, debentures, securities. You file a petition (Form SC-1 / state-equivalent) at the District Court where the deceased was ordinarily resident, list the assets and heirs, pay court fee (2-3% of asset value, capped per state — Maharashtra ₹75,000, Karnataka ₹50,000-₹1 lakh), the court issues a public notice in a vernacular newspaper for 30 days, hears objections (if any), and grants the certificate in 45-90 days (often longer in busy courts). Lawyer fees: ₹15,000-₹50,000+ depending on city and asset value. Used for: HDFC / SBI / ICICI bank claims above their internal "without certificate" limit, share transfer through KFin Tech / CAMS, mutual fund redemption by heirs. Different from Legal Heir Certificate (Tehsildar, lighter weight) and different from Will probate (Will-based).
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Anand's story — "₹47 lakh transferred after 4 months in court, ₹38,000 lawyer + ₹70,000 court fee" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Anand Deshmukh, 47, businessman from Aundh, Pune. Eldest of three siblings. Father Vishwanath Deshmukh, retired BSNL deputy general manager, passed away suddenly in March 2025 of a stroke at age 76. Father had no Will.//
	+
	+	> "Papa never made a Will — typical Indian father, 'I'll do it next year' for thirty years. After he passed, the three of us — myself, my younger brother Aniket who's in Bengaluru, and our sister Anjali in Nagpur — sat down to figure out his estate. The man had been disciplined: ₹35 lakh in HDFC fixed deposits across two MOD-linked SB accounts; ₹12 lakh in shares — Reliance Industries (~3,500 shares), Infosys (~800 shares), ICICI Bank (~1,200 shares), all in dematerialised form with NSDL through HDFC Securities; ₹1.8 lakh in a small SBI savings; the family flat in Aundh (in his name, no loan); a small SBI Magnum mutual fund holding around ₹4 lakh.
	+
	+	> First we got the Legal Heir Certificate from Aundh Mamlatdar — that took 35 days, ₹600 total. Easy. With it we settled: SBI ₹1.8 lakh (within nomination limits), the family pension nominee (mother), and a ₹50,000 LIC term plan.
	+
	+	> But for HDFC — when I walked in with Legal Heir Certificate for the ₹35 lakh FDs — the branch manager was apologetic but firm: 'Sir, internal policy: anything above ₹5 lakh, we need a Succession Certificate from the civil court. Or all heirs sign a discharge with two sureties for the full amount. The sureties must own equivalent assets.' For ₹35 lakh, finding sureties was a non-starter.
	+
	+	> For the Reliance, Infosys, ICICI shares — the RTA, KFin Tech (formerly Karvy), demanded Succession Certificate flat-out for any holding above ₹2 lakh value (their internal threshold reduced from ₹5 lakh to ₹2 lakh after new SEBI 2024 circular). For the SBI Magnum mutual fund — CAMS (the RTA) said same: above ₹2 lakh, court order needed.
	+
	+	> So we went to the Pune District Civil Court in early April 2025. We hired Adv. Sushma Kale on a senior advocate's recommendation — quoted ₹38,000 inclusive (drafting + court fees + newspaper + 5 hearings). She drafted the Form SC-1 petition under §372 ISA listing all assets (with HDFC and KFin Tech statements as proof), all four heirs (mother, three children), and our consents. Court fee was a flat 2% of the ₹47 lakh = ₹94,000 statutorily, capped at ₹75,000 in Maharashtra. The newspaper publication appeared in Pudhari (Marathi) and Times of India (English) on 12 May 2025. The 30-day objection window ran out on 11 June with zero objections.
	+
	+	> The court heard the matter on 24 June and 11 August. Both routine. Certificate granted on 22 August 2025 — exactly 4 months and 18 days from filing.
	+
	+	> Within 6 weeks of the certificate:
	+
	+	> * HDFC FDs ₹35 lakh — transferred to a joint account in mother's name, paid out among us per Hindu Succession Act class-I shares (mother 25%, each child 25%).
	+	> * Reliance + Infosys + ICICI shares — transmitted into a new joint demat in mother's name through HDFC Securities; took 4 weeks per the new SEBI streamlined transmission rules.
	+	> * SBI Magnum MF — redeemed and credited.
	+
	+	> Total transferred: ₹47 lakh + a bit more from interest accrual. Total cost: ₹38,000 lawyer + ₹75,000 court fee + ₹4,500 newspaper + ₹1,200 stamp paper + ₹600 certified copies = ₹1,19,300 — about 2.5% of asset value. Our sister Anjali initially questioned why we couldn't just 'manage with Legal Heir Certificate' — but HDFC and KFin Tech weren't going to budge, and it'd have taken months of arguing for nothing.
	+
	+	> The flat in Aundh is being handled separately through a Letters of Administration petition — different process for immovable property. We're a year into that and still moving."
	+
	+	—Anand, October 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	In FY 2024-25, Indian district civil courts disposed of approximately 2.4 lakh succession-related matters (NJDG data). Average time-to-grant in non-contentious cases: 4-7 months. In contested matters: 2-5 years. The single biggest cost driver is the lawyer fee, not the court fee.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and how it compares with Legal Heir Certificate / Probate =====
	+
	+	A Succession Certificate is a court order under §370-§390 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 granting one or more persons authority to:
	+
	+	* Receive debts owed to the deceased.
	+	* Collect / transfer securities belonging to the deceased — bank deposits, shares, debentures, government securities, mutual fund units.
	+
	+	It does NOT cover immovable property (land, house, flat) — for those you need a separate transfer mechanism (mutation in revenue records on Legal Heir Certificate, or Letters of Administration / Will probate for change in title).
	+
	+	Comparison at a glance:
	+
	+	* Legal Heir Certificate (Tehsildar / SDM, 30-45 days, ₹500-₹1,500 cost) — administrative certificate. Adequate for LIC, EPF, pension, bank deposits up to ₹1.5 lakh per RBI rules. See [[:apply-legal-heir-certificate-2026\|How to apply for Legal Heir Certificate]].
	+	* Succession Certificate (Civil Court, 45-90+ days, ₹15,000-1,20,000 cost) — court order. Required for movable assets above bank/RTA internal thresholds.
	+	* Probate of Will (Civil Court / High Court, §57 ISA, 6-12 months, ₹20,000+) — required when there IS a Will, in jurisdictions where probate is mandatory (Bengal, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu — for Wills made by Hindus / Christians within the limits of original civil jurisdiction of HCs).
	+	* Letters of Administration (§218 ISA, Civil Court, 6-12 months) — granted when deceased died intestate AND administration of estate is needed (typically for immovable property + complex estates).
	+
	+	In short: Legal Heir Certificate = enumeration of heirs, Succession Certificate = authority to collect movable debts. Get the cheaper one first; escalate to Succession Certificate only when an institution actually demands it.
	+
	+	===== When you actually need a Succession Certificate =====
	+
	+	Real-world triggers (any one of these):
	+
	+	* Bank deposit above the bank's "without certificate" limit. Banks set their own thresholds: SBI typically ₹5 lakh, HDFC ₹5 lakh, ICICI ₹5 lakh, Axis ₹5 lakh, Bank of Baroda ₹3 lakh, public sector co-operatives often ₹1 lakh-₹2 lakh. Below that limit, Legal Heir + indemnity may suffice. Above, Succession Certificate is the path of least resistance.
	+	* Shares / debentures held by deceased. SEBI's 2024 streamlined transmission norms reduced the threshold for demanding Succession Certificate from RTAs (KFin Tech, CAMS, Link Intime) from ₹5 lakh to ₹2 lakh per company. Above ₹2 lakh value of any single company's holding, RTA will insist.
	+	* Mutual fund holdings. AMCs / RTAs apply similar thresholds (₹2-5 lakh per folio) — Succession Certificate above the threshold.
	+	* Government Securities (GoI bonds, RBI bonds, Sovereign Gold Bonds). RBI requires Succession Certificate for transmission to heirs above ₹1 lakh.
	+	* PPF / Sukanya / NSC where nomination was not done. The post office / SBI demands Succession Certificate for amounts above ₹5 lakh in absence of nomination.
	+	* Intestate succession with multiple heirs. Where there is no Will and several heirs need to be identified for the estate distribution.
	+	* Inter-state asset transfer. Deceased lived in Maharashtra but had FDs in Karnataka — transfer between branches of different jurisdictions often demands a court certificate.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Take stock of all movable assets ====
	+
	+	Before approaching a lawyer, build a complete asset list with documentary proof:
	+
	+	* Bank statements of all accounts (savings + current + FDs + RDs).
	+	* Demat statement (NSDL / CDSL CAS — Consolidated Account Statement, comes monthly by email).
	+	* Mutual fund statement — get from CAMS Online (cams.com → Statement) for all CAMS-serviced AMCs in one PDF.
	+	* Insurance policies — LIC and others. Check both maturity and surrender values.
	+	* Provident fund + EPS pension — EPFO passbook from unifiedportal-mem.epfindia.gov.in.
	+	* PPF / Senior Citizen / NSC balances.
	+	* Bonds, debentures — RBI Retail Direct portal, broker statements.
	+
	+	This list is the foundation of the petition. Underestimating costs you in re-petitioning; over-listing (including assets you forgot were nominated) wastes court fee.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Hire a civil lawyer ====
	+
	+	A Succession Certificate petition is technical but not contentious in most cases. Costs:
	+
	+	* Tier-1 metros (Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, Pune, Kolkata): ₹25,000-₹75,000 inclusive.
	+	* Tier-2 cities: ₹15,000-₹35,000.
	+	* Smaller districts: ₹8,000-₹20,000.
	+
	+	What's typically included: drafting petition, court filing, newspaper publication, 4-6 hearings, certified copy. Disbursements (court fee, newspaper, stamp paper) are extra — separately billed at actuals.
	+
	+	Negotiate fixed fee rather than per-hearing — a non-contentious matter shouldn't have surprises.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — File petition (Form SC-1 / state equivalent) ====
	+
	+	The lawyer drafts a petition addressed to the District Judge, including:
	+
	+	* Title and details of deceased (name, age at death, last residence, date of death, religion).
	+	* Family tree / list of legal heirs with relationship, age, address.
	+	* Death certificate.
	+	* Affidavits of all heirs giving consent / no-objection.
	+	* Schedule of assets — itemised with proof (bank statements, demat statements).
	+	* Total value of assets — this determines court fee.
	+	* Prayer: grant of Succession Certificate to named petitioner(s) for the listed assets.
	+
	+	Filed at the District Civil Court in the district where the deceased was ordinarily resident at the time of death. For estates above ₹50 lakh / ₹1 crore (state-specific), original jurisdiction may lie with the High Court — Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Madras HCs hear these directly under Letters Patent.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Pay court fee ====
	+
	+	Court fee is statutorily fixed under each state's Court Fees Act read with Indian Stamp Act 1899 as adapted by the state.
	+
	+	Indicative rates:
	+
	+	* Maharashtra — 3% of asset value, capped at ₹75,000.
	+	* Karnataka — 2% with a slab structure, capped around ₹50,000-₹1 lakh depending on slab.
	+	* Tamil Nadu — 3% with cap ₹3,00,000.
	+	* Delhi (NCR) — 4% (no cap traditionally; check current Delhi CFA notification).
	+	* West Bengal — 5% with slabs.
	+	* Uttar Pradesh — 2.5%.
	+
	+	Court fee is paid via e-stamp paper / GRAS portal / treasury challan — paper stamps largely phased out. The lawyer arranges this.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Court issues notice + newspaper publication ====
	+
	+	After the petition is admitted, the court directs:
	+
	+	* Notice to all named legal heirs — to consent or object (usually all already consent in the petition).
	+	* General public notice in a vernacular daily newspaper + one English daily — published for one issue, gives 30 days to any other claimant to object.
	+	* Notice on court board — pasted at court premises.
	+
	+	The newspaper publication is the longest fixed-time element. Typical cost: ₹2,500-₹6,000 for the two ads.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Hear objections (if any) and pass order ====
	+
	+	If no objections come within 30 days (the common case), the court:
	+
	+	* Holds a brief hearing (often only 2-3 short appearances by lawyer).
	+	* Reviews the petition, heirship documents, asset list.
	+	* Passes the order granting Succession Certificate to the named petitioner(s).
	+
	+	If objections come (a competing claimant alleges unequal share, unlisted heir, contested marital status), the matter becomes contentious — converts effectively to a civil suit. Time stretches to 2-5 years. Lawyer cost balloons. Most petitioners then negotiate a settlement among heirs to withdraw objections and proceed.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Receive certified copy and use ====
	+
	+	After the order, the court issues the Succession Certificate — typically 1 original + 3-5 certified copies (extra copies cost ₹100-₹300 each).
	+
	+	Use the certificate at:
	+
	+	* Banks — submit at branch with bank's transmission form, KYC of heirs, indemnity bond.
	+	* RTAs (KFin Tech, CAMS, Link Intime) — for share transfer / mutual fund transmission. Submit certified copy + transmission request form + KYC of beneficiary.
	+	* NSDL / CDSL — through the demat broker for share transmission.
	+	* Post Office — for PPF, NSC, MIS, SCSS transmission.
	+	* RBI — for GoI bonds, SGB transmission via the receiving office.
	+
	+	Each institution has a 30-90 day internal SLA for transmission post-receipt of certificate.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline + asset-coverage table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Lawyer fee (typical) \| ₹15,000-₹75,000 (city + complexity) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Court fee (Maharashtra) \| 3% of asset value, capped ₹75,000 \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Court fee (Karnataka) \| ~2% slab, capped ~₹50k-₹1 lakh \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Court fee (Delhi) \| 4% (verify current CFA notification)\|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Newspaper publication \| ₹2,500-₹6,000 (vernacular + English)\|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Stamp paper + e-stamping \| ₹500-₹2,000 \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Certified copies \| ₹100-₹300 per copy \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Total typical cost \| ₹50,000-₹2 lakh \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Time non-contested \| 45-90 days (court calendar) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Time contested \| 2-5 years \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Newspaper objection window \| 30 days \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Validity \| Lifetime (covers only listed assets;\|
	+	\| \| new assets need fresh certificate) \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| What it covers \| Bank deposits + FDs, shares, \|
	+	\| \| mutual funds, debentures, govt \|
	+	\| \| securities, bonds — MOVABLE ONLY \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| What it does NOT cover \| Immovable property (land, house), \|
	+	\| \| partnership interest, gold/jewellery\|
	+	\| \| physically held, foreign assets \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| Statutory reference \| Indian Succession Act 1925 §370-§390\|
	+	\| \| Court Fees Act 1870 (state-amended) \|
	+	\| \| Hindu / Muslim / ISA personal law \|
	+	\| \| for share entitlement \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI fee for case status \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons your Succession Certificate gets stuck =====
	+
	+	* Incomplete asset list. Petition lists ₹25 lakh but you find another ₹4 lakh FD afterwards. You must amend the petition (extra court fee, delay) or file a supplementary one. Do exhaustive asset discovery before petitioning.
	+	* Missing heir signatures / consent. A sibling who lives abroad hasn't signed the no-objection / consent affidavit; or a minor heir doesn't have a guardian appointed. Court adjourns till documents come.
	+	* Objection from a disputed claimant. A second wife, an estranged sibling, a creditor of the deceased. Matter becomes contentious — converts to a civil suit. Often takes years.
	+	* Valuation dispute. The court suspects under-valuation of shares (e.g., petition says "Reliance shares ₹2 lakh" but day's market value is ₹4 lakh). Demands valuation certificate from a registered valuer or current statement from RTA.
	+	* Newspaper publication missed or wrong newspaper. If the newspaper isn't in the proper "vernacular daily" prescribed by court rules, the publication is treated as not done. Republish.
	+	* Court stay due to a related civil suit. A partition suit by one sibling among the heirs results in a stay on the succession petition.
	+	* Lawyer's tactical delay. A common complaint — adjournments to bill more hearings. Negotiate fixed fee upfront and demand monthly progress emails.
	+	* Court-fee deficit. Original valuation understated; court demands additional fee + delay.
	+	* Petitioner's affidavit defects. Notarisation gaps, swear-in done in wrong jurisdiction, missing identification page. Easy to fix but each fix is one hearing day.
	+	* Death certificate not from a competent authority. If the deceased died in a hospital but only the hospital discharge certificate is filed (not the Municipal Corporation death certificate), court rejects.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Lawyer + court clerk follow-up ====
	+
	+	* Most "stuck" cases are hearings-not-listed problems. The court reader (sherishtedar) lists the matter. Polite weekly visits by the lawyer's junior keep your matter moving.
	+	* Demand from your lawyer: a copy of every order sheet after each hearing.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Senior District Judge / Principal District Judge ====
	+
	+	* If the assigned Judge is on long leave or matters are not being listed, a Memo to the Principal District Judge (the senior-most district judge) requesting reassignment can help.
	+	* In writing, with copies to the assigned judge's court clerk.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — High Court — supervisory jurisdiction ====
	+
	+	* Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts. A petition can be filed if a matter has been pending unreasonably long or denied a hearing.
	+	* Costs higher — only worthwhile in genuinely stuck cases (1+ year delay without movement).
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) ====
	+
	+	* https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in — public portal showing every case's status, listing, and history.
	+	* Useful as evidence in escalation; you can cite delay statistics.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	Civil Courts are public authorities under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005, with PIOs designated at every High Court and most District Courts (the Registrar General is typically the PIO for HC matters; District Judge nominates a PIO for district matters).
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* Your petition has been filed but no listing has happened in 3+ months — RTI for "the listing history of CS No. X / Year Y including dates of listing, adjournments and reasons recorded".
	+	* Court fee was paid but the receipt / acknowledgement is lost — RTI for "copy of court fee challan / e-stamp acknowledgement for petition number X".
	+	* Newspaper publication was supposedly done but you can't trace the issue — RTI for "copy of the newspaper page filed on record showing the publication notice".
	+	* Order has been pronounced but certified copy is delayed — RTI to the copying section for "date of application and current status of certified copy issuance".
	+	* You want to compare your case's pendency with similar matters in the same court — RTI for "average time-to-disposal for §372 ISA petitions in this court for the last calendar year" — useful in escalations.
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You disagree with the court's order on shares / heir entitlement — RTI cannot review or set aside a judicial order. Use appeal under §384 ISA to High Court.
	+	* You want the judge's reasoning explained — read the order. RTI cannot extract additional reasoning from a judicial mind.
	+	* You want copies of another party's confidential affidavits — exempted under §8(1)(j) (third-party privacy) unless it relates to the public interest.
	+	* You want RTI to expedite a hearing — judicial scheduling is the prerogative of the court; RTI gets you the status not a directive to list sooner.
	+	* You want to interfere with the merits of an objector's claim — RTI gives you procedural information; substantive entitlement is for the court to decide.
	+	* You want case-merit advice — RTI never gives legal opinions. Hire a lawyer or seek free aid through DALSA / SLSA under the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Do I need Succession Certificate for my deceased mother's ₹3 lakh fixed deposit at SBI?\\
	+	Most likely no. SBI's typical "without certificate" threshold is ₹5 lakh (verified at branch level). With a Legal Heir Certificate + indemnity bond + sureties, ₹3 lakh transfers in 2-3 weeks. Try the Legal Heir route first — see [[:apply-legal-heir-certificate-2026\|How to apply for Legal Heir Certificate]].
	+
	+	Q. My father had a Will leaving everything to me. Do I still need Succession Certificate?\\
	+	You need probate of the Will (under §57 ISA), not Succession Certificate. Probate authenticates the Will and gives you authority over assets. In Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai (within HC original jurisdiction), probate is mandatory for Wills made by Hindus / Christians. Elsewhere, probate is optional but banks and RTAs often demand it for large estates.
	+
	+	Q. Can two heirs jointly apply for Succession Certificate?\\
	+	Yes — one petitions, others either join as co-petitioners or sign no-objection affidavits. Most petitions name one principal beneficiary with the others as consenting heirs, and the certificate names the principal beneficiary as the recipient who then distributes per personal law shares.
	+
	+	Q. What if my father had assets in 3 different states — do I need 3 separate certificates?\\
	+	A Succession Certificate from the District Court of the deceased's last ordinary residence is valid throughout India. One certificate — present certified copies at each institution. However, if there's an institution in a different state that contests the certificate (rare), an extension under §376 ISA may be needed.
	+
	+	Q. Court fee in Maharashtra is capped at ₹75,000 — but my estate is ₹2 crore. Real cost?\\
	+	₹75,000 court fee + lawyer fee (₹50,000-1 lakh for a ₹2 crore matter) + newspaper (₹4-5k) + stamp/copies (₹3-5k) = total ~ ₹1.3-1.85 lakh. Less than 1% of the estate value. Worth it for the legal certainty.
	+
	+	Q. The court has granted Succession Certificate but HDFC is now asking for additional indemnity bond. Is this legal?\\
	+	Yes. Banks routinely take a discharge / indemnity bond even after a Succession Certificate, as a defensive measure against later claims by undisclosed heirs. It's a one-time formality — sign it; you've already obtained the court order.
	+
	+	Q. I'm an NRI heir. Can my father in India apply on my behalf?\\
	+	Yes — execute a Power of Attorney in your favour (notarised + apostilled / Indian Embassy attested if executed abroad), authorising your father to represent you in the petition. The court accepts PoA signatures on consent affidavits.
	+
	+	Q. Can the Succession Certificate cover assets I find AFTER the certificate is granted?\\
	+	No. The certificate covers only listed assets. For assets discovered later, you can apply to the same court for extension of the certificate under §376 ISA — usually faster (no fresh newspaper publication needed if extension is consistent with the original).
	+
	+	Q. My father had ₹8 lakh in physical Kisan Vikas Patra at the post office. Succession Certificate needed?\\
	+	Above the post office's ₹5 lakh nomination-less threshold, yes — Department of Posts requires Succession Certificate. Below that, with Legal Heir + indemnity, the SP can clear it.
	+
	+	Q. We have a family settlement agreement — can we skip the Succession Certificate?\\
	+	A family settlement among all heirs (signed, notarised, registered if it covers immovable property) is binding between the heirs but is not directly enforceable on third-party institutions (banks, RTAs). Most institutions still demand the Succession Certificate as the basis for transfer; the family settlement governs how the heirs distribute among themselves once received.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:apply-legal-heir-certificate-2026\|How to apply for Legal Heir Certificate — for smaller claims]]
	+	* [[:register-a-will-2026\|How to register a Will — to avoid the Succession Certificate process for your heirs]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Court fees and SLAs vary by state and are amended periodically — verify with your local lawyer or on the eCourts portal (ecourts.gov.in / njdg.ecourts.gov.in) or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot anything outdated.//
	+
	+	{{tag>succession-certificate civil-court indian-succession-act-1925 section-370 section-372 hindu-succession-act-intestate bank-deposits-deceased shares-transmission RTA KFin-tech CAMS court-fee maharashtra-cap citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to file a consumer complaint (NCDRC / e-Daakhil)

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 09:02:02 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(how to file consumer complaint,NCDRC complaint 2026,consumer protection act 2019,e-daakhil portal,district consumer forum,state consumer commission,Form A consumer complaint,defective product refund,deficient service,unfair trade practice,National Consumer Helpline 1915,consumerhelpline.gov.in,CCPA,consumer complaint fees 2026,how to sue online seller)&metatag-description=(How to file a consumer complaint (NCDRC / e-Daakhil) - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to file a consumer complaint (NCDRC / e-Daakhil) ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:file-consumer-complaint-ncdrc-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to file consumer complaint NCDRC 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. For any defective product, deficient service, unfair trade practice, or misleading advertisement, file a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 at the right forum based on amount: District Commission (DCDRC) up to ₹50 lakh, State Commission (SCDRC) ₹50 lakh – ₹2 crore, National Commission (NCDRC) above ₹2 crore (pecuniary limits revised by Notification dated 30 December 2021). File online at edaakhil.nic.in or in person; fees range from ₹100 to ₹5,000 depending on claim value (free in many states for sums below ₹5 lakh). Limitation: 2 years from cause of action under §69. Free pre-complaint mediation at the National Consumer Helpline 1915 / consumerhelpline.gov.in. Statutory disposal target: 3 months (5 months if expert opinion needed) under §38(7).
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Rohit's story — "Refurbished iPhone, full refund + ₹25,000 in 5 months" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Rohit Rao, 31, mobile-app developer at a Bengaluru fintech. Pre-ordered an iPhone 15 Pro Max (256 GB) in July 2024 on a popular online marketplace from an authorized seller. Total paid: ₹1,49,900.//
	+
	+	> "The box arrived sealed, but the phone inside had a faint screen-bezel scratch and the battery health on first boot showed 92% — clearly not new. I ran the IMEI on Apple's coverage page: it said 'AppleCare not yet activated; warranty starts in 38 days' — meaning someone had already opened, set up, and returned this unit. I emailed the seller; their reply: 'Box opened, no return.' Disgraceful. I sent a legal notice via email + Speed Post — ignored. I went to edaakhil.nic.in, registered with mobile + Aadhaar, picked Bengaluru District Commission. Filed Form A — fee ₹200. Apple India joined as Respondent No. 2 (warranty). Notices were served, both responded; the seller blamed Apple's stock; Apple's lawyer was professional. Hearing was hybrid (I attended virtually). Order in 5 months — full refund of ₹1,49,900 + ₹25,000 mental harassment + ₹5,000 cost = ₹1,79,900. Seller paid in 30 days; I shipped the unit back. Total cost: ₹200 fee + 1 day of my time + 0 lawyers."
	+
	+	—Rohit, March 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	NCDRC's Annual Report 2024 records that 20.27 lakh consumer cases have been filed in India since 1986, of which 18.86 lakh stand disposed — a 93% disposal rate across forums. The 2019 Act's e-Daakhil + Direct Selling Rules + product-liability provisions have made the system materially faster than its 1986 predecessor.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and which forum is yours =====
	+
	+	A "consumer complaint" is a written grievance filed by a consumer under §2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — meaning anyone who has bought goods or hired services for a consideration for personal use (not for resale or commercial purpose, except self-employment).
	+
	+	You can file when any of these happens:
	+
	+	* Defective goods — product doesn't match description, has manufacturing defects, dangerous, or doesn't perform.
	+	* Deficient service — telco, courier, airline, builder, hospital, bank, e-commerce platform falls short.
	+	* Unfair trade practice — false / misleading advertising, fake discount, hoarding, refusing to demonstrate the product.
	+	* Restrictive trade practice — tied selling, refusal to bill, retention of paid amounts.
	+	* Excess price charged over MRP / printed tariff.
	+	* Hazardous goods sold without warning (under product-liability — Chapter VI of the 2019 Act).
	+
	+	The new institutional architecture has three pillars:
	+
	+	* CCPA — Central Consumer Protection Authority (under §10 CPA 2019). Preventive enforcer; can order recall, ban misleading ads, impose penalties up to ₹10 lakh on first contravention and ₹50 lakh on subsequent, and prosecute. CCPA does not decide your individual compensation claim.
	+	* Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions — DCDRC (district), SCDRC (state), NCDRC (national). Adjudicate individual disputes, order refunds / replacements / damages.
	+	* Consumer Mediation Cell — attached to each Commission for voluntary mediation under §74-§81.
	+
	+	Pecuniary jurisdiction (post-30 Dec 2021 Notification):
	+
	+	* DCDRC — claims up to ₹50,00,000.
	+	* SCDRC — ₹50 lakh – ₹2 crore.
	+	* NCDRC — above ₹2 crore.
	+
	+	Territorial jurisdiction under §34: file where (a) the opposite party resides / works for gain, OR (b) the cause of action arose, OR (c) the complainant resides or works for gain (a citizen-friendly choice introduced in the 2019 Act — you can sue an out-of-state e-commerce seller from your home district).
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Try pre-complaint mediation (optional but useful) ====
	+
	+	Call the National Consumer Helpline 1915 (10 am – 5 pm, all days except national holidays) or register on consumerhelpline.gov.in. Trained agents take down the complaint; the seller is contacted via the NCH Convergence Programme — many large brands (Amazon, Flipkart, Apple India, Samsung, Maruti Suzuki, Tata Power, Reliance Jio, etc.) are signatories and respond within 7-15 days. Free.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Send a legal notice (recommended, not mandatory) ====
	+
	+	A 1-page legal notice on plain paper (no advocate stamp needed) by Speed Post and email — gives the opposite party a final 15-day window. Many cases settle here.
	+
	+	* Reference your invoice / order ID / service ticket.
	+	* State the defect / deficiency clearly.
	+	* Quote the section of CPA 2019 you're relying on.
	+	* Demand specific relief (refund / replacement / repair / compensation).
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Pick the right forum based on claim value ====
	+
	+	"Claim value" = price paid + compensation sought + interest. Don't undercount — file at the right level the first time. If you file at DCDRC for ₹52 lakh claim, the case will be returned for filing at SCDRC; you waste fee and time.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Prepare the complaint ====
	+
	+	Use the prescribed form:
	+
	+	* Form A — DCDRC.
	+	* Form B — SCDRC.
	+	* Form C — NCDRC.
	+
	+	The complaint must contain (Rule 6, Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Rules 2020):
	+
	+	* Complainant's name, address, contact.
	+	* Opposite party's name + correct registered address (for e-commerce, the platform AND the seller — both).
	+	* Facts in chronological order.
	+	* Cause of action — when, where, how.
	+	* Documents relied on (list).
	+	* Reliefs claimed.
	+	* Verification + signature.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — File on e-Daakhil ====
	+
	+	* Go to edaakhil.nic.in.
	+	* Register with mobile + email + Aadhaar (eKYC).
	+	* Choose state → district → "File New Complaint".
	+	* Upload the complaint PDF + documents (each ≤ 2 MB).
	+	* Pay the fee online (net banking / UPI / card).
	+	* Get an e-Daakhil Filing Number (e.g., DC/KA/BLR/CC/123/2026) — your reference.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Notice and reply ====
	+
	+	The Commission scrutinizes the complaint and either admits or directs cure of defects (15 days to cure). On admission, notice is served on the opposite party — 30 days to file written statement (extendable by 15 days only — Supreme Court in //New India Assurance v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage// 2020 holds this strictly).
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Hearing ====
	+
	+	Hybrid (physical + virtual) hearings are standard now. You can appear yourself (no advocate is required — Commissions are designed for citizens). Bring:
	+
	+	* Original invoice / receipt.
	+	* Original service contract / policy.
	+	* Photographs / videos of defect (with date stamps).
	+	* Lab report (if applicable).
	+	* All written communication.
	+	* Affidavit of evidence (a sworn statement narrating your case — the Commission usually provides a template).
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Order ====
	+
	+	Statutory disposal is 3 months under §38(7) (5 months if expert opinion / lab analysis is required). Order can include:
	+
	+	* Refund of price + interest (commonly 9-12% p.a. from date of payment).
	+	* Replacement of defective goods.
	+	* Repair or rectification.
	+	* Compensation for loss / mental harassment (typically ₹10,000 – ₹5 lakh, judicial discretion).
	+	* Litigation cost (₹1,000 – ₹50,000).
	+	* Punitive damages in egregious cases.
	+	* Removal of unfair trade practice (e.g., stop misleading ad).
	+
	+	Order is enforceable as a decree of civil court under §72. Non-compliance attracts imprisonment up to 3 years or fine up to ₹1 lakh under §72(1).
	+
	+	===== Sample fee slabs + Form A excerpt =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
	+	\| CONSUMER COMPLAINT FEES (e-Daakhil + offline) — 2026 \|
	+	+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
	+	\| DCDRC \| Claim up to Rs. 5,00,000 \| NIL (free) in most states \|
	+	\| \| Rs. 5,00,001 – Rs. 10,00,000 \| Rs. 200 \|
	+	\| \| Rs. 10,00,001 – Rs. 20,00,000 \| Rs. 400 \|
	+	\| \| Rs. 20,00,001 – Rs. 50,00,000 \| Rs. 500 \|
	+	+--------+-----------------------------------+----------------------------+
	+	\| SCDRC \| Rs. 50,00,001 – Rs. 1,00,00,000 \| Rs. 2,000 \|
	+	\| \| Rs. 1,00,00,001 – Rs. 2,00,00,000 \| Rs. 4,000 \|
	+	+--------+-----------------------------------+----------------------------+
	+	\| NCDRC \| Above Rs. 2,00,00,000 \| Rs. 5,000 \|
	+	+--------+-----------------------------------+----------------------------+
	+	\| Appeal — DCDRC to SCDRC: 50% of awarded amount must be deposited under \|
	+	\| §41 (capped at Rs. 25,000 — for OPP filing appeal, not consumer). \|
	+	\| Appeal — SCDRC to NCDRC: similar cap, Rs. 35,000. \|
	+	\| Appeal — NCDRC to Supreme Court: 50% of awarded amount under §67. \|
	+	+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
	+
	+	FORM A — CONSUMER COMPLAINT (key fields, DCDRC):
	+	1. Particulars of complainant (name, age, occupation, address)
	+	2. Particulars of opposite party 1 (registered office, contact)
	+	Particulars of opposite party 2 (if applicable)
	+	3. Jurisdiction (territorial + pecuniary basis)
	+	4. Facts of the case in chronological numbered paras
	+	5. Cause of action — date, place, transaction, defect/deficiency
	+	6. Documents relied on (list as Annexure A1, A2 ...)
	+	7. Reliefs claimed:
	+	a. Refund of Rs. ____
	+	b. Compensation Rs. ____
	+	c. Litigation cost Rs. ____
	+	d. Interest @ ___% from date of payment
	+	e. Any other relief
	+	8. Verification — signed before notary or self-attested
	+	9. Vakalatnama (if advocate used) — OPTIONAL
	+
	+	REQUIRED DOCUMENTS:
	+	* Tax invoice / receipt / order confirmation
	+	* Bank statement showing payment
	+	* Photos of defect / video / lab report
	+	* Copy of legal notice (if sent) + AD card / Speed Post receipt
	+	* Copy of warranty / service contract
	+	* Aadhaar / PAN of complainant (for e-Daakhil eKYC)
	+
	+	National Consumer Helpline 1915 — Free. 10 am - 5 pm. consumerhelpline.gov.in.
	+	RTI to PIO Consumer Forum: Rs. 10 by IPO. BPL = free.
	+	RTI to PIO Dept of Consumer Aff.: Rs. 10 by IPO. consumeraffairs.nic.in.
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons your consumer complaint fails or stalls =====
	+
	+	* Not a "consumer". Bought for commercial / resale purpose? You're outside the Act's protection (except a self-employed person earning livelihood from a single such purchase — proviso to §2(7)).
	+	* Beyond limitation — 2 years from cause of action under §69. Some Commissions condone delay for "sufficient cause" (medical, police case pending, etc.) but be ready with proof.
	+	* Wrong pecuniary jurisdiction — undercounting your claim to land at DCDRC. Case will be returned.
	+	* Wrong territorial jurisdiction — make sure the jurisdiction clause in your complaint matches §34 (your address, OPP address, or cause-of-action address).
	+	* Vague pleadings — generic "harassment by company" without dates, amounts, transaction IDs leads to dismissal.
	+	* No supporting evidence — invoice, payment proof, defect photos. Consumer cases rest on documents.
	+	* Wrong opposite party. For e-commerce, you must implead both the marketplace platform AND the actual seller (and sometimes the manufacturer for product-liability under Chapter VI). One missing party can cripple execution.
	+	* "As-is" / non-warranty sale for second-hand goods — limited remedies available unless the defect was fraudulently concealed.
	+	* Government-statutory body as opposite party — some specialized services (e.g., judicial functions, sovereign acts) are excluded; railway accidents go to Railway Claims Tribunal; tax disputes go to ITAT.
	+
	+	===== If unresolved — escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Review under §40 of CPA 2019 ====
	+
	+	For clerical / procedural mistakes in the order, file a review application before the same Commission within 30 days. Limited grounds.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Appeal ====
	+
	+	* DCDRC → SCDRC under §41, within 45 days of order.
	+	* SCDRC → NCDRC under §51, within 30 days.
	+	* NCDRC → Supreme Court under §67, within 30 days.
	+
	+	For an OPP (opposite party) filing appeal, 50% of awarded amount or ₹25,000-₹35,000 (whichever is less) must be deposited as a pre-condition.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Execution under §72 ====
	+
	+	If the OPP doesn't comply with the order, file an execution application before the same Commission. Non-compliance is a punishable offence — imprisonment up to 3 years or fine up to ₹1 lakh or both.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — High Court / Supreme Court ====
	+
	+	For pure questions of law, a writ under Article 226/227 to High Court is sometimes maintainable; SLP to Supreme Court is the final route. Counsel essential.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — CCPA referral ====
	+
	+	For systemic issues (misleading ad, repeated unfair practice across consumers), write to Central Consumer Protection Authority at ccpa-doca@gov.in asking for class-action style preventive action under §18 / §21 CPA 2019. CCPA has imposed multi-crore penalties on Patanjali, Naaptol, Senco Gold and others.
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	Every Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Department of Consumer Affairs is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* You want case status updates that the e-Daakhil portal isn't reflecting.
	+	* You want a certified copy of an old order (for citation in your appeal).
	+	* You want CCPA's action history against a specific seller (penalty orders, recall orders).
	+	* You want statistics — average disposal time at your DCDRC, oldest pending case (useful for a writ petition citing inordinate delay).
	+	* You want to understand why your complaint was returned — RTI to the registry PIO for the noting / scrutiny report.
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You want the Commission to decide your case faster — that's adjudicatory, RTI cannot influence it. File a representation to the President of the Commission instead.
	+	* You want information from the private opposite party (the seller / service provider) — they are not public authorities. Use discovery in your consumer case instead (file an interim application asking the Commission to order production).
	+	* You want a legal interpretation of CPA 2019 — that's expert opinion, not "information held".
	+
	+	For background on filing a basic RTI, see [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps]].
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. I bought a product on Amazon from a third-party seller. Whom do I sue?\\
	+	Both. Under §2(17) of CPA 2019 + the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, the e-commerce entity is liable for misleading listing, non-delivery, and certain product issues, alongside the seller for defect / quality. Implead both in Form A.
	+
	+	Q. Can I claim mental harassment damages?\\
	+	Yes — Commissions routinely grant ₹10,000 – ₹5 lakh for proven mental agony, harassment, lost time. The amount depends on transaction value, time taken, and OPP conduct.
	+
	+	Q. The DCDRC reserved order 8 months back; nothing has happened. What now?\\
	+	First, write to the President of the Commission asking for pronouncement (a respectful one-page representation). If still nothing, file an RTI for "list of pending reserved orders older than 6 months". Last resort: writ in High Court under Article 227 citing inordinate delay.
	+
	+	Q. The other side has filed an appeal and got a stay. Can I still recover the amount?\\
	+	Generally no — the appeal must be heard. But the OPP had to deposit 50% of the awarded amount under §41 / §51 — that money is safe with the Commission and will be released to you on outcome.
	+
	+	Q. I want a recall of a hazardous product, not just my refund. What do I do?\\
	+	File the consumer complaint for your refund AND separately write to CCPA (ccpa-doca@gov.in) seeking product-recall investigation under §20 / §22. CCPA has ordered recalls for unsafe pressure cookers, helmets, and food products in 2023-2025.
	+
	+	Q. Can NRIs file a consumer complaint in India?\\
	+	Yes — file at the forum where the cause of action arose or the OPP is located. Appearance can be virtual; a Power of Attorney can be appointed. eKYC on e-Daakhil works with overseas Aadhaar holders.
	+
	+	Q. Is mediation through the Commission Mediation Cell binding?\\
	+	Only if both sides sign the settlement agreement, which is then placed on record and becomes an order in terms of the settlement under §81 — fully enforceable. Walking away mid-mediation is allowed; nothing is binding until signed.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file against a government department / PSU?\\
	+	Most government services for which a fee is charged (e.g., LPG, BSNL, electricity, water, postal) qualify as "service" under §2(42). Pure sovereign / judicial acts are excluded. Telco BSNL, India Post, IRCTC have all been held liable in landmark cases.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:file-rera-complaint-2026\|How to file a RERA complaint against your builder]]
	+	* [[:file-insurance-complaint-irdai-2026\|How to file an insurance complaint (IRDAI / Ombudsman)]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. CPA 2019 pecuniary limits and e-Daakhil portal flows are revised periodically — verify on edaakhil.nic.in or consumeraffairs.nic.in before filing, or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>consumer-protection consumer-protection-act-2019 NCDRC SCDRC DCDRC e-daakhil consumer-helpline-1915 CCPA Form-A defective-product deficient-service unfair-trade-practice section-2-7 section-34 section-69 product-liability rti-to-consumer-forum citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to apply for an Occupancy Certificate (OC) — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(occupancy certificate 2026,how to get OC builder,OC from BMC Mumbai,BBMP occupancy certificate,MCD OC Delhi,RERA complaint OC,builder not giving OC,occupancy certificate vs completion certificate,OC delay 2 years,Maharashtra RERA OC,occupancy certificate fee,water connection without OC,property tax OC,§3 RERA,occupancy certificate format)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to getting your Occupancy Certificate (OC) from the Municipal Corporation — Mumbai BMC, Bengaluru BBMP, Delhi MCD process, fees, and what to.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to apply for an Occupancy Certificate (OC) — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:apply-occupancy-certificate-oc-builder-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to apply for Occupancy Certificate 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. An Occupancy Certificate (OC) is the document the Municipal Corporation issues confirming that your building is fit for human occupation — proper sewerage, water, electricity, fire safety, structural compliance with the sanctioned plan. It is mandatory under §353-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (and equivalent state municipal laws) before anyone moves in. The builder (or owner if self-built) applies after construction is complete, attaching the architect's completion drawings, structural stability certificate, fire NOC, and lift inspection report. Municipal Corp inspects within 21-30 days and issues OC. Apply online at MahaOnline / BMC AutoDCR (Mumbai), Sakala BBMP (Bengaluru), MCD Online Building Plan (Delhi) etc. If the builder delays, file a complaint with your State RERA under §11(4)(b) and §14 — the most effective lever. RTI helps you get the inspection-file status when nothing moves.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Mahesh's story — "Builder sat on OC for 2 years; RERA complaint moved it in 4 months" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Mahesh Kulkarni, 42, IT manager in Pune. Booked a 2BHK at a 14-storey project in Wakad in 2020. Possession given (with handover letter) in March 2024. No OC. Builder said "applied, awaiting PMC inspection". Two years passed.//
	+
	+	> "We moved in on the strength of a 'temporary possession letter'. The builder kept saying OC was 'about to come'. By mid-2025 we still didn't have it. The water connection was being run on the builder's bulk meter, electricity through a bulk LT connection — every month the society had to chase him for actual readings. When I tried to get my own MSEDCL meter the officer asked, 'Where's the OC?' Same story at PMC for individual property tax — without OC they were charging 2x penalty rate. I filed an RTI to PMC Building Permission Department on 14 February 2026 — ₹10 court fee stamp, hand-delivered. Reply on 9 March (23 days): 'Application for OC dated 18 July 2024 received. Site inspection on 22 August 2024 noted 3 deviations from sanctioned plan — extra parking floor area, modified fire refuge, encroachment on side margin. Builder advised to regularise. No further compliance received.' That was the smoking gun. I filed a MahaRERA complaint on 18 March under §11(4)(a) and §14(3) — total fee ₹5,000, online at maharera.maharashtra.gov.in. Hearing on 12 May; second hearing 30 June. RERA directed the builder to either regularise or demolish the deviation within 60 days, and to deposit ₹3 lakh interest for delayed possession. Builder applied for compounding (paid PMC ₹4.2 lakh penalty), regularised, fresh inspection on 18 August. OC issued on 11 September 2026 — 4 months after I started using RERA. RTI gave me the proof; RERA gave me the lever."
	+
	+	—Mahesh, October 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	CREDAI's own 2025 survey accepted that roughly 40% of completed urban housing projects sit without OC for more than 12 months — the builder uses your possession letter to discharge his §17 obligation but quietly defers the OC because it triggers refund of his security deposit to the Municipal Corp and limits his ability to make plan changes.
	+
	+	===== What an Occupancy Certificate is — and why it matters =====
	+
	+	An Occupancy Certificate (OC) is the formal permission from the local planning authority (Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Cantonment Board, or Development Authority) certifying:
	+
	+	* The building has been constructed as per the sanctioned plan.
	+	* Civic services — water, sewerage, drainage, electricity infrastructure, lift, fire safety — are in place and tested.
	+	* The building meets the National Building Code 2016 and state-specific building bye-laws.
	+	* It is safe and lawful for occupation.
	+
	+	Without OC, legally you are an unauthorised occupant. Practically, this means:
	+
	+	* No individual electricity meter (DISCOMs ask for OC under their connection regulations).
	+	* No piped water connection in your name — you stay on builder's bulk meter, often paying 30-40% more.
	+	* Higher property tax — most municipalities charge a 1.5x to 2x penalty rate on un-OC'd buildings.
	+	* No home loan top-up / refinance — banks require OC under RBI's KYC and asset-verification norms.
	+	* Resale is impaired — buyers' lawyers refuse to clear title without OC.
	+	* Insurance claims may be denied — both home contents and structural insurance use OC as a baseline.
	+	* Society registration delayed — Co-op Societies Registrar in most states asks for OC before final society registration under the Cooperative Societies Act.
	+
	+	The legal anchor is in your state municipal law — §353-A Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act 1949, §310 Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976, §347 Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, §288 Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 (RERA) at §11(4)(b) and §17(1) also makes the promoter (builder) responsible for obtaining OC and handing it to the allottee — failure is a separately actionable offence.
	+
	+	==== OC vs CC — they are different ====
	+
	+	A Completion Certificate (CC) is issued when the structure matches the approved plan. An Occupancy Certificate (OC) is issued when the building is fit for occupation (services connected, fire NOC, lift fitness, structural stability all separately certified). In some states (Maharashtra, Karnataka) a Part-OC can be issued floor-wise for phased projects. In Delhi, the MCD often issues a combined "OC-cum-CC". See our companion guide: [[:apply-completion-certificate-cc-builder-2026\|Completion Certificate — full 2026 guide]].
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Confirm who applies (builder, owner, or society) ====
	+
	+	* New flat in a builder project (RERA-registered): the promoter/builder applies. You as the allottee cannot directly apply because the sanctioned plan is in the builder's name.
	+	* Self-built independent house: the owner applies through the architect/licensed engineer who supervised construction.
	+	* Co-op housing society after redevelopment: the developer under the development agreement applies; in dispute the society can apply with a board resolution.
	+	* Plotted building >300 sq m: licensed structural engineer must counter-sign the application.
	+
	+	If you're a flat buyer and the builder is not applying — start with a written reminder under §17 RERA (template below).
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Assemble the document set ====
	+
	+	The Municipal Corp checklist varies slightly by state, but the core file is the same:
	+
	+	* Application form (state-specific — Form B in Maharashtra, Form 13 in Karnataka, Form C in Delhi).
	+	* Sanctioned building plan (original or certified copy).
	+	* Commencement Certificate (CC issued before construction started).
	+	* Architect's certificate that construction is as per sanctioned plan (Form A1 in Maharashtra under §44 of MR&TP Act).
	+	* Structural stability certificate by an empanelled structural engineer.
	+	* Completion drawings (as-built drawings, 4 sets).
	+	* Fire NOC from Chief Fire Officer / State Fire Services (mandatory for buildings >15 m or commercial).
	+	* Lift inspection certificate from Chief Electrical Inspector / Lift Inspector (under Lifts and Escalators Act).
	+	* Electrical safety certificate by a licensed electrical contractor.
	+	* Rainwater harvesting compliance (mandatory in most states above a plot threshold).
	+	* Sewerage / STP commissioning certificate if applicable (any project >20 dwelling units in most states).
	+	* Solar water heater installation proof (mandatory in Karnataka for buildings ≥600 sq m; similar rules in Maharashtra, TN).
	+	* Property tax assessment during construction (zero outstanding).
	+	* Society / RWA constitution proof if applicable.
	+	* No-encroachment certificate from the Town Planning section.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — File online via the city portal ====
	+
	+	State-specific entry points:
	+
	+	* Mumbai BMC: https://autodcr.mcgm.gov.in (AutoDCR system) → "Apply for Occupancy Certificate" → upload documents → pay scrutiny fee online. Track on the same dashboard.
	+	* Pune PMC: https://buildingpermission.pmc.gov.in → BPMS portal → "OC application".
	+	* Bengaluru BBMP: https://sakala.kar.nic.in → Service: "Issue of Occupancy Certificate" → SLA 30 days under Karnataka Sakala Act 2011. Building plan portal: https://sasthra.karnataka.gov.in.
	+	* Delhi MCD: https://mcdonline.nic.in → Building Department → "Occupancy / Completion Certificate". For DDA-jurisdiction colonies use https://eservices.dda.org.in.
	+	* Hyderabad GHMC: https://dpms.ghmc.gov.in → "Occupancy Certificate".
	+	* Chennai CMDA / Greater Chennai Corp: https://onlinecmdams.tn.gov.in → "OC application".
	+	* Kolkata KMC: https://www.kmcgov.in → e-Services → Building → "Completion Certificate / Occupancy Certificate".
	+	* Ahmedabad AMC: https://ahmedabadcity.gov.in → Online Development Permission System → "OC".
	+	* Gurugram MCG / HSVP: https://onlinemcg.haryana.gov.in for self-built / DTCP for licensed colonies.
	+	* Noida / Greater Noida Authority: https://noidaauthorityonline.com → Occupancy module.
	+
	+	The portal generates an inward number — keep it; this is your handle for RTI later.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Pay the scrutiny + civic infrastructure fees ====
	+
	+	Fees vary widely. Indicative slabs in 2026:
	+
	+	* OC application scrutiny fee: ₹3 to ₹15 per sq m of built-up area (Mumbai ₹15/sq m; Pune ₹10/sq m; Bengaluru ₹6/sq m; Delhi ₹5-12/sq m).
	+	* Water + sewerage connection deposit: ₹6,000 to ₹40,000 per flat depending on size and city.
	+	* Solid waste management fee: ₹2-5/sq m.
	+	* Labour cess (1% of construction value under Building & Other Construction Workers Cess Act 1996) is paid earlier but proof required at OC.
	+	* Compounding charges if any deviation from sanctioned plan — typically 5x to 25x normal scrutiny fee depending on the deviation %.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Sit through the site inspection ====
	+
	+	* Within 15-30 days of fee payment, the Building Inspector / Junior Engineer of the Municipal Corp visits.
	+	* They check: setbacks, height, parking, FSI, fire refuge, lift well, mumty, headroom, ventilation, ramp slope, basement waterproofing, terrace water tanks, STP working, electrical metering rooms.
	+	* They cross-check measurements on a handful of flats (random sampling) against the sanctioned plan.
	+	* Anything beyond ±3% tolerance is logged as a deviation.
	+	* Inspection report is uploaded to the portal — typically within 7-10 days.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Address deviations (compounding, regularisation, or demolition) ====
	+
	+	* Minor deviations (≤5% of FSI, internal partition changes): compoundable on payment of penalty.
	+	* Major deviations (encroachment on margins, illegal floor, FSI breach >10%): may require demolition; in some states (Maharashtra under DCPR 2034, Karnataka under "Akrama-Sakrama") regularisation schemes are periodically opened.
	+	* Fire / structural non-compliance: must be physically corrected — no compounding.
	+
	+	This is the most common reason builders sit on OC — the cost of compounding eats their margin and they hope buyers will move in anyway.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — OC issued; collect digitally and physically ====
	+
	+	* Once compliance is confirmed, the Municipal Commissioner / Town Planner signs the OC.
	+	* In most online states the OC is downloadable as a digitally-signed PDF from the same portal — equally valid as a physical copy under the IT Act §4 + §5.
	+	* Builder is required under §17(1) RERA to hand over the OC to allottees within 15 days of receipt — get it in writing on the society / individual letterhead.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Use the OC to convert all interim services ====
	+
	+	Within 90 days of receiving OC:
	+
	+	* Apply for individual electricity meter in your name with the DISCOM (BESCOM, MSEDCL, BSES, TPDDL, TANGEDCO, etc.). Quote OC number.
	+	* Apply for individual water connection with the city water board. Quote OC number.
	+	* Apply for property tax assessment in your name at the regular slab — pay back-tax differential if any.
	+	* Update your Khata / Property Card / Mutation at the city revenue office.
	+	* Submit OC to your home loan bank for record (releases withheld disbursement, if any).
	+	* Society can now apply for conveyance / deemed conveyance under §11 of MOFA 1963 (Maharashtra), or equivalent law.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline + escalation table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| OC scrutiny fee (Mumbai BMC) \| ₹15 per sq m of built-up area \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| OC scrutiny fee (Pune PMC) \| ₹10 per sq m + 18% GST \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| OC scrutiny fee (Bengaluru BBMP) \| ₹6-8 per sq m (slab-based) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| OC scrutiny fee (Delhi MCD) \| ₹5-12 per sq m (zone-dependent) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Water + sewer infra deposit \| ₹6,000–₹40,000 per flat \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Statutory SLA — Maharashtra \| 30 days under MR&TP §44 + DCPR 2034 \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Statutory SLA — Karnataka \| 30 days (Sakala Act 2011) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Statutory SLA — Delhi \| 30 days under MCD Building Bye-laws \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Compounding penalty (minor dev.) \| 5x to 10x normal scrutiny fee \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RERA complaint fee (most states) \| ₹5,000 (allottee, single project) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to Municipal Corp PIO \| ₹10 (court fee stamp / IPO / cash) \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons your OC is stuck =====
	+
	+	* Builder hasn't applied at all. Despite handover, no OC application has been filed because builder anticipates failing the plan-deviation check. Find out via RTI to the Building Permission Department — ask "Has any OC application been received for [project name, plot/CTS no.]? If yes, on what date and what is current status?"
	+	* Plan deviations — extra floor, larger built-up than sanctioned, parking converted to shops, fire refuge missing. The compounding cost falls on the builder; until he pays, file is held.
	+	* Fire NOC pending. Fire department has its own queue — typically 30-60 days. Track on state fire services portal.
	+	* Lift inspection pending. Chief Electrical Inspector / Lift Inspector is centralised in most states; backlogs of 3-4 months are common in Mumbai and Pune.
	+	* STP not commissioned. For projects >20 units, the State Pollution Control Board needs to certify the STP — separate clearance.
	+	* Property tax dues. Municipal Corp will not even take the OC file without zero-dues certificate.
	+	* Labour cess unpaid. Builder forgot to remit the 1% cess; until paid, no OC.
	+	* Society conveyance issues. In Maharashtra, society conveyance is sometimes confused with OC — they're separate; conveyance can wait but OC must come first.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Written reminder to builder under §17 RERA ====
	+
	+	* Send a registered AD letter (or email + WhatsApp + builder's RERA portal grievance form) quoting §11(4)(b) and §17(1) of the RERA Act 2016: "Promoter shall obtain occupancy certificate from competent authority and make it available to allottees individually, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be."
	+	* Give 30 days to respond. Keep the postal receipt.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Application/RTI to Municipal Corporation ====
	+
	+	* File an RTI to the PIO — Building Permission Department of your Municipal Corp.
	+	* Ask: (i) date of OC application, (ii) date and findings of site inspection, (iii) list of deviations noted, (iv) compounding amount demanded, (v) current file status with name and designation of officer holding the file.
	+	* 30-day reply window under §7(1) RTI Act 2005.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — State RERA complaint ====
	+
	+	* File at your state RERA portal: maharera.maharashtra.gov.in (Maharashtra), rera.karnataka.gov.in (Karnataka), rera.delhi.gov.in (Delhi), upreraconsumer.in (UP), tnrera.in (Tamil Nadu), rera.telangana.gov.in (Telangana), rera.kerala.gov.in (Kerala), rera.rajasthan.gov.in (Rajasthan), wbrera.in (West Bengal), gujrera.gujarat.gov.in (Gujarat).
	+	* Fee ₹5,000 (allottee, single project) in most states.
	+	* Cite §11(4)(b), §14(3), §17(1), §18(1) — interest for delay.
	+	* RERA passes orders within 60 days under §29; appeal to RERA Appellate Tribunal under §44 within 60 days.
	+	* Detailed walkthrough at [[:file-rera-complaint-2026\|How to file a RERA complaint — 2026 guide]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Consumer Forum (DCDRC) ====
	+
	+	* If your loss is quantifiable (rent paid for alternate house, loan EMI for an unusable flat, deposit erosion), file a complaint under §35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
	+	* Pecuniary jurisdiction: District Commission up to ₹50 lakh, State Commission ₹50 lakh – ₹2 crore, NCDRC above ₹2 crore.
	+	* Online portal: https://edaakhil.nic.in. Fee ₹200 to ₹4,000 depending on slab.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — High Court writ ====
	+
	+	* If the Municipal Corp itself is sitting on a clean file beyond statutory SLA, a writ of mandamus under Article 226 forces them to decide within a court-set timeline.
	+	* Cost: ₹15,000-₹50,000 in lawyer fees + court fees. PIL route possible if 50+ flats are stuck (society can file collectively).
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	The Municipal Corporation, State RERA, Fire Services, DISCOM, Water Board are all public authorities under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* The builder claims OC is "applied" but you have no proof — RTI to Building Permission PIO confirms application date and inspection status.
	+	* Inspection has happened but the report isn't shared — RTI extracts the inspection report and deviation list.
	+	* Compounding amount has been demanded but builder is hiding the figure (and trying to recover from buyers) — RTI gets the official demand letter.
	+	* Fire NOC / lift inspection is "pending" indefinitely — RTI to Fire Services / Electrical Inspectorate PIO names the officer holding the file and current queue position.
	+	* You want to verify the OC is genuine before purchase — RTI to Municipal Corp PIO confirms whether OC bearing that number is in the official register.
	+
	+	See: [[:rti-for-building-plan-approval-delay\|RTI for delayed building plan approval — copy-ready template]].
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You want the OC to be issued — RTI is an information-fetching tool, not a directive. Use State RERA + writ for actual issuance.
	+	* You disagree with the compounding amount on merits — that's a quasi-judicial decision; appeal to the Municipal Tribunal or High Court.
	+	* Builder hasn't even applied — RTI will return "no record" and you must escalate to RERA for §17 violation.
	+	* You want compensation for the delay — RTI gets you the file; §18 RERA + Consumer Forum awards the money.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Builder gave me possession but no OC — am I in legal trouble?\\
	+	You are technically an unauthorised occupant. The Municipal Corp can (in rare cases) demolish or impose use-and-occupation charges on the owner of the structure (the builder, not the allottee). The bigger risks fall on you only at resale, refinance, and society conveyance. Push the builder via §17 RERA.
	+
	+	Q. Can I get my own electricity meter without OC?\\
	+	Some DISCOMs (BESCOM in Karnataka, MSEDCL in Maharashtra) accept a temporary connection on the basis of an indemnity bond + copy of registered sale deed — at a higher tariff. Permanent meter requires OC. Call the DISCOM 1912 helpline for current rules.
	+
	+	Q. What's the difference between OC and Part-OC?\\
	+	Part-OC is issued floor-wise or wing-wise for large phased projects — common in Mumbai and Bengaluru towers where lower floors are ready first. Has the same legal effect for the certified portion. Full OC must follow within a fixed period (usually 24 months).
	+
	+	Q. Can the society apply for OC if the builder won't?\\
	+	Generally no, because the sanctioned plan is in the builder's name. Exception: where a society has already obtained deemed conveyance under §11 MOFA 1963 (Maharashtra), it becomes the legal owner and can apply. For other states, the society can move RERA under §14 to direct the promoter to apply.
	+
	+	Q. Can I refuse to take possession until builder gives OC?\\
	+	Yes — under §19(3) RERA the allottee is entitled to occupation only after OC is obtained. Any "possession letter without OC" is technically against §11(4)(b). You can refuse, sit out the rent, and claim §18(1) interest until OC. Practical caveat: many allottees can't afford parallel rent + EMI, so they take possession under protest in writing.
	+
	+	Q. Is OC required for plotted houses (independent bungalow)?\\
	+	Yes, in almost every state. Independent house owners must apply through their architect; for houses below a state-defined plot size (e.g. 200 sq m in Karnataka), a simplified self-certification window exists.
	+
	+	Q. What if my building is in a "regularised unauthorised colony"?\\
	+	Schemes like Delhi's "PM-UDAY" or Karnataka's "Akrama-Sakrama" allow regularisation of unauthorised constructions on payment — the regularisation certificate is not the same as OC but is treated as equivalent for utility connections. Check the specific scheme rules.
	+
	+	Q. How long is an OC valid?\\
	+	OC is permanent — it does not expire. But if you make significant alterations (added floor, structural change, change of use to commercial), a fresh sanctioned plan + fresh OC is required.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:apply-completion-certificate-cc-builder-2026\|Completion Certificate (CC) — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:complain-builder-not-handing-over-2026\|Builder not handing over flat — escalation guide]]
	+	* [[:file-rera-complaint-2026\|How to file a RERA complaint — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-building-plan-approval-delay\|RTI for delayed building plan approval]]
	+	* [[:apply-society-noc-2026\|Society NOC — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:apply-shop-establishment-licence-2026\|Shop & Establishment licence — 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — master directory]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Building bye-laws, RERA fee scales and compounding rates change every year — verify on your Municipal Corp portal or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>occupancy-certificate oc-builder oc-mumbai oc-bengaluru oc-delhi rera-complaint section-17-rera section-353a-mmc-act bbmp-oc bmc-oc mcd-oc citizen-guide help-first builder-delay rti-municipal-corporation 2026}}

FIR not getting registered in 2026? Use RTI to force a written reason

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 09:02:02 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti for fir not registered,fir refusal rti,police station fir denied,rti to sho,lalita kumari case,bnss section 173,fir copy rti,cognizable offence fir,rti for fir status,rti police complaint)&metatag-description=(FIR not getting registered in 2026? Use RTI to force a written reason - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference.)}}
	+
	+	====== FIR not getting registered in 2026? Use RTI to force a written reason ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:rti-for-fir-not-registered.png?direct&1200 \|FIR not registered — RTI Wiki guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Plain-English summary. If a police station has refused to register your FIR for a cognizable offence — or has been "looking into it" for weeks — you have two parallel legal routes. One: a §156(3) CrPC application to the Magistrate. Two: an RTI application that compels the SHO to give you a written reason for non-registration within 30 days. RTI is free (₹10 fee), needs no lawyer, and the reply itself often unblocks the FIR. This guide walks you through both, with a ready template. The Supreme Court in //Lalita Kumari// has said FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences. RTI puts that in writing.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Naresh's story — "FIR No. 247/2026 was registered 7 days after my RTI reply" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Naresh Prasad, 47, businessman in Patna. In January 2026 his property partner forged his signature on a sale deed worth ₹38 lakh. Naresh tried to file an FIR at Patliputra Police Station. Five visits in six weeks. Each time told "we are inquiring". His emails to ACP Patna East went unanswered. His son suggested an RTI.//
	+
	+	> "I had spent ₹12,000 on lawyer consultations and was told to 'wait for the police'. The cybercafe agent near the court wanted ₹25,000 to 'arrange the FIR through contacts'. I refused. On 18 February I posted a one-page RTI to the PIO at Patliputra PS by Registered AD — fee ₹10 by Indian Postal Order. On 17 March a registered envelope arrived. The reply admitted that 'preliminary enquiry under §202-equivalent was ongoing'. I attached this reply to a follow-up letter to the SP citing //Lalita Kumari v. UP// (2014). Within 7 days FIR No. 247/2026 was registered under BNS §318 (cheating) and BNS §336 (forgery). The whole exercise cost me less than ₹100. The agent had wanted ₹25,000."
	+
	+	—Naresh, March 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	This is not unusual. National Crime Records Bureau data and the Supreme Court's own observations in //Lalita Kumari// (2014) note that non-registration of FIR is one of the most common grievances against the police in India. RTI is the lowest-cost legal pressure tool available to push a station to either register or to record in writing why they have not.
	+
	+	===== Why an RTI works (when the police helpline doesn't) =====
	+
	+	You have probably already tried the obvious routes. Most state police now have:
	+
	+	* Helpline 100 / 112 (national emergency)
	+	* State citizen apps — UP Cop App, Maharashtra Citizen Portal, Delhi Police app, Karnataka KSP, Tamil Nadu TNPolice, Bihar Police Citizen Portal
	+	* CPGRAMS (https://pgportal.gov.in)
	+	* District SP / Commissioner email complaints
	+
	+	These routes can move things — but they are not legally bound to give you a reasoned written reply in a fixed time. A station officer can mark your CPGRAMS complaint "resolved" by simply writing "matter under inquiry, complainant may visit the station". No reason needed. No appeal.
	+
	+	* CPGRAMS / app: the SHO can close your ticket with a one-line reply. You have no automatic escalation.
	+	* RTI: the PIO must give you a written reply with reasons within 30 days under §7(1). If they don't, you file a First Appeal under §19(1) for free. Then a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission under §19(3), where penalties of up to ₹25,000 can be imposed on a silent PIO under §20.
	+
	+	In short: a complaint app is a request. An RTI is a legal claim on your right to know.
	+
	+	Important on police and RTI in 2026. State police are not in the §24 schedule of the RTI Act (only IB, RAW, CRPF and a few others are). Many state amendments to §24 (e.g., Maharashtra, UP, Bihar) carve out "intelligence units" but not the regular police station. Routine matters — FIR status, FIR copy, missing-person registers, character-certificate processing, vehicle records — are squarely under RTI. The Supreme Court in //CBI v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal// (2019) and the Delhi High Court in //Bhagat Singh v. CIC// (2007) have consistently held that §8(1)(h) (investigation exemption) must be specifically justified — it is not a blanket bar.
	+
	+	===== The 8 steps, in order =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Confirm your offence is cognizable ====
	+
	+	The //Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh// (2014) 2 SCC 1 Constitution Bench made FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offences. Common cognizable offences:
	+
	+	* Cheating, forgery (BNS §316–§336, earlier IPC §415-§420)
	+	* Theft, robbery, dacoity (BNS §303–§310)
	+	* Hurt, assault, criminal intimidation (BNS §115–§133)
	+	* Rape, sexual offences, POCSO — mandatory FIR, no preliminary enquiry allowed
	+	* Dowry death, domestic violence under §498A IPC equivalent (BNS §85–§86)
	+	* Cyber fraud above ₹25 lakh in many states
	+
	+	Non-cognizable offences (defamation, simple cheating below threshold in some states) only need an NC entry — police can refer you to court directly.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Get the right PIO address ====
	+
	+	Police RTI structure in most states is three-tier:
	+
	+	* Station-level PIO: the Station House Officer (SHO) is usually the PIO for FIR/registration records. Address: "PIO, [Police Station Name]".
	+	* District-level PIO + FAA: the Superintendent of Police (SP) in districts, or DCP/Commissioner of Police in metros, is the FAA. Some states designate the SP office's "Reader" as district PIO.
	+	* State HQ PIO: Director General of Police (DGP) office has its own PIO for state-wide records.
	+
	+	For an FIR-not-registered case, file at the Station PIO. Send a parallel copy to the SP/DCP (this triggers internal pressure even before the formal reply).
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Pay the ₹10 fee ====
	+
	+	* Indian Postal Order (IPO) for ₹10, payable to "Accounts Officer, [name of police office]". Buy from any post office. Most reliable.
	+	* Court fee stamp of ₹10 — accepted in most state police offices.
	+	* Cash if you walk in (allowed under §6(1), though some stations resist).
	+	* Demand Draft for ₹10 — overkill, but allowed.
	+
	+	BPL applicants: fee waived. Attach BPL ration card copy.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Write the RTI (use this exact template) ====
	+
	+	Be specific. Don't ask "why have you not registered my FIR?" — ask for the status, the dealing officer, the rule cited, and the file number.
	+
	+	<code>
	+	[Your full name]
	+	[Your address]
	+	[Phone] · [Email]
	+	[Date]
	+
	+	To,
	+	The Public Information Officer
	+	(Station House Officer)
	+	[Name of Police Station]
	+	[District, State, PIN]
	+
	+	Copy to: The Public Information Officer, Office of the SP/Commissioner of Police, [District/City]
	+
	+	Subject: RTI application under §6(1), RTI Act 2005 — status of complaint dated [DD-MM-YYYY] regarding cognizable offence
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	I am a citizen of India. I had submitted a written complaint at your police station on [date] regarding the following cognizable offence: [brief one-line description, e.g., "forgery of property documents under BNS §336"]. The complaint was acknowledged by [name of officer / dak number / receipt number, if any]. As of today, no FIR has been registered.
	+
	+	I request the following information under §6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
	+
	+	1. Whether my complaint dated [date] has been registered as an FIR. If yes, the FIR number, date, and sections invoked. If no, the specific written reason for non-registration with reference to the relevant provision (BNSS §173 / earlier CrPC §154, or the //Lalita Kumari// guidelines).
	+
	+	2. The name, designation, and contact number of the investigating officer (IO) currently handling my complaint.
	+
	+	3. The date on which the complaint was entered into the Station Diary (Roznamcha) and the GD/Roznamcha entry number.
	+
	+	4. If any "preliminary enquiry" has been initiated, (a) the date it commenced, (b) the officer conducting it, (c) the date by which it is to be concluded, and (d) the category of offence under which preliminary enquiry is permitted as per the //Lalita Kumari// (2014) 2 SCC 1 framework.
	+
	+	5. A certified copy of the complaint as recorded in your station records.
	+
	+	6. If the complaint was forwarded to any other police station on jurisdictional grounds, the date, the receiving station, and the dispatch/diary number.
	+
	+	Fee: I enclose Indian Postal Order No. [number] dated [date] for ₹10 in favour of "Accounts Officer, [Police Office]".
	+
	+	I declare that I am a citizen of India.
	+
	+	Yours faithfully,
	+	[Signature]
	+	[Name]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Send by Registered Post AD + walk a copy in ====
	+
	+	Use Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (AD). Cost ₹40-60.
	+
	+	* Take the application + IPO to the post office
	+	* Ask for "Registered AD"
	+	* Keep the receipt — your dated proof of filing
	+	* Post the second copy (to the SP/Commissioner) the same day
	+
	+	Optional but powerful: also hand-deliver a copy at the station and ask the duty officer to stamp your duplicate. Many SHOs reconsider the moment they see an RTI being filed.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Mark the deadline + parallel §156(3) CrPC route ====
	+
	+	The 30-day RTI clock starts the day the office receives your application (the date on the AD card).
	+
	+	* Day 30: Reply due. If silence → §7(2) deemed refusal → file First Appeal at Day 31.
	+
	+	In parallel — don't wait if the offence is serious — file a §156(3) CrPC / BNSS §175(3) application before the Judicial Magistrate / Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district. This is a one-page application asking the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. The Magistrate routinely grants this when the SHO has refused.
	+
	+	* Court fee: ₹2-10 depending on state.
	+	* Format: plain application + your written complaint + proof of refusal (return slip, RTI itself).
	+	* The Supreme Court in //Lalita Kumari// (2014) and //Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP// (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held this route is available the moment the police refuse.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — When the RTI reply arrives, use it ====
	+
	+	The PIO's reply will typically take one of these shapes:
	+
	+	- "FIR registered, here is the FIR number." Done. Demand a free copy under BNSS §173(2) — it is a public document.
	+	- "Preliminary enquiry pending." Check whether your offence is in the //Lalita Kumari// "permitted preliminary enquiry" categories (matrimonial, commercial, medical negligence, corruption, abnormal delay). If not, escalate immediately — preliminary enquiry is not allowed for ordinary cognizable offences.
	+	- "Matter is non-cognizable." Demand the specific section under which the offence is being read. If the section is wrong, write a representation to the SP citing //Lalita Kumari// + the correct BNS section.
	+	- "Jurisdiction belongs to [other PS]." File the same RTI at that station; you can also insist on a "Zero FIR" under BNSS §173(1) proviso, which any station can register and forward.
	+	- "Compromise being attempted between parties." Police have no power to refuse FIR for compromise reasons in non-compoundable offences. Write back citing //Lalita Kumari//.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — If silence: First Appeal → Second Appeal ====
	+
	+	File a First Appeal under §19(1) — free, by registered post, 30-day clock.
	+
	+	The FAA for a Police Station PIO is usually the SP / DCP / Commissioner of the district. Address:
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	The First Appellate Authority
	+	(Superintendent of Police / DCP / Commissioner of Police)
	+	[Office address, district HQ]
	+
	+	Subject: First Appeal under §19(1), RTI Act 2005 — non-response by PIO, [PS Name]
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	I filed an RTI application dated [original date] (AD acknowledged on [AD date]) with the PIO/SHO of [PS name]. The §7(1) 30-day window ended on [day 30]. I have received [no reply / a vague reply not addressing my questions]. I file this First Appeal under §19(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
	+
	+	Grounds:
	+	- Information sought relates to the status and non-registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence (//Lalita Kumari v. UP// (2014) 2 SCC 1) and is squarely within the disclosure mandate (//Bhagat Singh v. CIC//, Delhi HC 2007 — §8(1)(h) cannot be invoked as a blanket bar).
	+	- The PIO has committed a §7(2) deemed refusal.
	+
	+	I attach: (a) copy of the original RTI, (b) postal AD acknowledgement, (c) the PIO's reply if any.
	+
	+	I request the FAA to direct the PIO to provide the information sought and to consider action under §20 of the RTI Act for the deemed refusal.
	+
	+	[Signature]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	If the FAA also fails to respond in 45 days (the §19(6) cap), you go to the State Information Commission under §19(3). Each state SIC has its own portal — Maharashtra SIC, UP SIC, Bihar SIC, Delhi SIC, Karnataka SIC etc. Most accept e-second-appeals.
	+
	+	===== What if the police invoke §8(1)(h)? =====
	+
	+	§8(1)(h) of RTI exempts information that "would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders". Police often invoke it as a default to refuse FIR-related RTIs. It rarely sticks for these requests:
	+
	+	* //Bhagat Singh v. CIC// (Delhi HC, 2007) — §8(1)(h) is not a blanket exemption. The PIO must show how disclosure would actually impede investigation.
	+	* //Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE// (2011) 8 SCC 497 — a citizen's own records held by a public authority must be disclosed on request. Your own complaint and its status are your records.
	+	* //B.S. Mathur v. PIO Delhi Police// (Delhi HC 2011) — even active investigation files require specific, recorded justification for §8(1)(h) refusal.
	+	* CIC orders 2010-2024 have repeatedly held that (a) the existence of an FIR, (b) the FIR copy itself, (c) the status of the complaint, (d) the IO's name are all disclosable. Investigation-stage witness statements (§161 statements) and forensic reports may be held back, but not the procedural record.
	+
	+	If the PIO replies citing §8(1)(h), your First Appeal must demand the specific justification required under §10 (severability) — i.e., even if some parts are exempt, the rest must be disclosed.
	+
	+	===== Common mistakes to avoid =====
	+
	+	* Sending by ordinary post. No proof of delivery, no clock starts. Always Registered AD.
	+	* Asking "why have you not registered?" instead of asking for status + reasons + dealing officer + Roznamcha entry. Vague questions invite vague answers.
	+	* Filing only at DGP HQ. Wrong-office RTIs get bounced. Always file at the station (and copy to SP).
	+	* Threatening or insulting tone. A polite, specific request gets a polite, specific reply.
	+	* Skipping the §156(3) parallel route. RTI is for the written record. §156(3) is for the actual FIR. Use both.
	+	* Ignoring "Zero FIR". If the station refuses on jurisdiction, demand a Zero FIR under BNSS §173(1) proviso — any PS can register and transfer.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Can I file an RTI before the police even take my complaint?\\
	+	You can — but the RTI is more useful after you have filed a written complaint and have a dak number / receipt. Without that, the PIO will reply "no record found".
	+
	+	Q. Is the FIR copy free?\\
	+	Yes. Under BNSS §173(2) (earlier CrPC §154(2)), the FIR copy must be given free of cost to the informant. You don't need an RTI for it — you can demand it directly. RTI is the fallback if they refuse.
	+
	+	Q. Can the SHO charge me for the RTI reply?\\
	+	The first 20 pages are typically free. After that, ₹2/page (varies by state — Bihar ₹2, Maharashtra ₹2, Delhi ₹2). The PIO will issue a fee demand notice and pause the 30-day clock until you pay.
	+
	+	Q. What if the SHO threatens me for filing an RTI?\\
	+	This is a serious offence under §3 of the RTI Act and may amount to an offence under BNS. Report to the SP, the State Information Commission, the State Human Rights Commission, and the District Magistrate. Many states (Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka) have RTI Activist Protection Cells.
	+
	+	Q. I am a victim of domestic violence and the police won't register the FIR. What do I do?\\
	+	For DV / dowry / sexual offences — FIR is mandatory and no preliminary enquiry is allowed (//Lalita Kumari// para 120.6). File the RTI and approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA — free legal aid), the State Women Commission, and the Mahila Police Station (in states that have one). Also file §156(3) immediately.
	+
	+	Q. The police registered the FIR but won't give me a copy. RTI?\\
	+	Yes — file a one-question RTI demanding (a) certified copy of the FIR under BNSS §173(2), (b) dispatch register entry showing when the copy was sent to the informant. CIC has held this is a clear-cut disclosure case.
	+
	+	===== Read more — the deep technical view =====
	+
	+	<WRAP collapse>
	+	The plain-language guide above is enough for almost every FIR-not-registered case. Below is for those who want full statutory and case-law references — useful for escalation to the SIC, High Court Article 226 writ, or a private complaint under BNSS §223 (earlier §200 CrPC).
	+
	+	==== Statutory framework ====
	+
	+	* Right to Information Act, 2005 — §3, §6(1), §7(1), §7(2), §8(1)(h), §10 (severability), §19(1)+(3)+(6), §20.
	+	* Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — replaced CrPC w.e.f. 1 July 2024:
	+	* §173 (= old §154 CrPC) — registration of FIR for cognizable offences. Sub-section (1) proviso allows Zero FIR. Sub-section (2) — free copy to informant.
	+	* §175 (= old §156 CrPC) — Magistrate's power to direct investigation. §175(3) is the equivalent of §156(3) CrPC — citizen application route.
	+	* §223 (= old §200 CrPC) — private complaint to Magistrate.
	+	* §225-§226 — Magistrate's enquiry (preliminary) for private complaints.
	+	* Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — replaced IPC. Common cognizable sections: §103-§109 (homicide), §115-§118 (hurt), §137-§140 (kidnapping), §303-§310 (theft/robbery), §316-§336 (cheating, forgery), §351 (criminal intimidation), §351 (defamation — not cognizable), §85-§86 (cruelty by husband / dowry).
	+	* Police Act 1861 + state Police Acts (Maharashtra Police Act 1951, Delhi Police Act 1978, Karnataka Police Act 1963 etc.) — confirm SHO's duty to register cognizable offence.
	+	* Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) — FIR is a public document under §74.
	+
	+	==== Key Supreme Court and High Court rulings ====
	+
	+	* //Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh//, (2014) 2 SCC 1 — Constitution Bench. Para 120.1: "Registration of FIR is mandatory under §154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation." Para 120.6: in matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and cases with abnormal delay — preliminary enquiry may be conducted, but must be concluded within 7 days (extendable to 15).
	+
	+	* //Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner//, W.P.(C) No. 3114/2007 (Delhi HC, 3 December 2007) — landmark on §8(1)(h) of RTI. Held that the burden is on the PIO to specifically demonstrate how disclosure would impede investigation. Mere assertion is insufficient.
	+
	+	* //Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE//, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — citizen's own records held by a public authority must be disclosed on request. Foundational.
	+
	+	* //Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP//, (2008) 2 SCC 409 — confirmed that aggrieved persons can move §156(3) CrPC for FIR registration. Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation.
	+
	+	* //Youth Bar Association of India v. UoI//, (2016) 9 SCC 473 — directed all states to upload every FIR on the police website within 24 hours (72 hours in remote areas). Cited in many CIC orders to strike down police refusals.
	+
	+	* //State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal//, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — the seven categories where High Court can quash an FIR. Useful to argue conversely: if your case doesn't fall in these, the police have no ground to refuse.
	+
	+	* //Mukesh Kumar v. State//, Delhi HC 2018 — RTI is the appropriate route to seek information about complaint status when the police are unresponsive.
	+
	+	==== Common §8 exemption claims (and why they usually fail) ====
	+
	+	* §8(1)(h) — investigation. Burden on PIO. //Bhagat Singh// + //B.S. Mathur// require specific, recorded justification.
	+	* §8(1)(g) — endanger life/safety. Sometimes invoked for IO name. CIC has narrowed this to genuine threat cases — routine IO names are disclosable.
	+	* §8(1)(j) — personal information. Frequently misapplied to refuse names of dealing officials. Names of public servants performing official duty are not personal information (//Subhash Chandra Agrawal//, //Namit Sharma//).
	+	* §24 — exempt organisations. State police are not in the Second Schedule. Some state amendments added "intelligence units" — but a regular Police Station is not an intelligence unit. Even where §24 applies, the proviso allows disclosure on allegations of corruption/human rights violations.
	+
	+	==== Parallel & follow-up routes ====
	+
	+	* §175(3) BNSS / §156(3) CrPC application — to JM/CJM. Plain application + complaint + refusal proof. Court fee ₹2-10.
	+	* Private complaint under BNSS §223 — if §175(3) fails, file a complaint case in court directly.
	+	* Article 226 writ to High Court — for mandamus directing FIR registration. Used when both station and Magistrate route fail.
	+	* State Human Rights Commission — for police inaction on grave matters (custodial issues, women's safety, SC/ST atrocities).
	+	* National Human Rights Commission — escalation if state SHRC silent.
	+	* State Police Complaints Authority (PCA) — set up under //Prakash Singh// (2006) 8 SCC 1 directions. Each state has one (some defunct, but Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka are active).
	+
	+	==== When the SHO refuses to accept the RTI at the counter ====
	+
	+	- Drop the application + IPO at the dak section and ask for the dak number.
	+	- The dak number is your acknowledgement.
	+	- If even dak refuses, post by Registered AD — same legal effect.
	+	- Mention this counter-refusal in your First Appeal as additional ground under §20.
	+	- In parallel, complain to the SP and the State Information Commission directly under §18 (separate from the appeal route).
	+
	+	==== Penalty mechanics — §20 ====
	+
	+	* §20(1): ₹250/day of delay, up to ₹25,000, on the PIO personally.
	+	* §20(2): Disciplinary action under conduct rules.
	+	* SIC issues a show-cause notice before imposing penalty. Most PIOs respond by providing the information.
	+
	+	==== Cross-references on RTI Wiki ====
	+
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — start here]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-police-verification-stuck\|RTI for stuck police verification (PVR)]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-police-character-certificate\|RTI for delayed police character certificate]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All citizen helplines — police, women, child, cyber]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee table]]
	+	* [[:landmark-cic-decisions\|Landmark CIC decisions on police RTIs]]
	+	* [[:act:section-8\|Section 8 exemptions — when they apply, when they don't]]
	+	* [[:act:section-20\|Section 20 penalty mechanics]]
	+
	+	==== Sources used in this article ====
	+
	+	* Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (Ministry of Law, consolidated text)
	+	* //Lalita Kumari// (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench)
	+	* //Bhagat Singh v. CIC// (Delhi HC, 2007)
	+	* //Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) 8 SCC 497
	+	* //Youth Bar Association// (2016) 9 SCC 473
	+	* NCRB Crime in India Report 2024
	+	* CIC orders archive (cic.gov.in)
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Conclusion =====
	+
	+	If a police station has refused to register your FIR, you don't need an "agent" or a ₹25,000 contact. You need a ₹10 postal order, a Registered AD envelope, and the template above. Combine the RTI with a §175(3) BNSS application to the Magistrate. Naresh got FIR No. 247/2026 registered in 7 days. The same path is open to you.
	+
	+	Don't pay anyone to file an RTI for you. It is a one-page letter, a ₹10 stamp, and a polite tone. That's it.
	+
	+	===== Related =====
	+
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-police-verification-stuck\|RTI for stuck police verification (PVR)]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-police-character-certificate\|RTI for delayed police character certificate]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All helplines — police, women, child, cyber]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee table]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. If you spot an error or an out-of-date phone/address, please post on the [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/ask.html\|Q&A forum]] or write to admin@bighelpers.in.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti police fir-not-registered lalita-kumari bnss-173 crpc-156 first-appeal sic citizen-rti citizen-story}}

How to complain when builder is not handing over your flat

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(builder not handing over flat,RERA complaint 2026,RERA Act 2016,section 18 RERA refund,section 31 RERA complaint,MahaRERA Form M,builder delay possession,specific performance flat,consumer forum builder,NCDRC complaint builder,REAT appellate tribunal,IBC NCLT real estate,real estate possession delay,interest on builder delay,recovery from builder)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing complaint when your builder is not handing over your flat — three parallel routes (RERA / Consumer Forum / Civil Court), state.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to complain when builder is not handing over your flat ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:complain-builder-not-handing-over-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to complain when builder is not handing over flat 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. If your builder has missed the possession date recorded in your Agreement to Sell (the registered one, not the brochure), you have three parallel legal routes under Indian law: (1) file a complaint with your state RERA under §31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for refund + interest under §18 or specific performance + compensation under §14/§17; (2) file a Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 at District / State / National Commission depending on amount (deficiency in service); (3) file a Civil Suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The fastest, cheapest, and most enforceable route in 2026 is RERA — fee is just ₹5,000 in most states, hearing in 60-90 days, and orders are recoverable as arrears of land revenue through the District Collector. Interest rate currently awarded by MahaRERA / UPRERA is 10.85%-11% per annum on the entire amount paid, from the agreed possession date till actual delivery.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Vikas's story — "16 months delay, ₹14.7 lakh interest recovered through MahaRERA" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Vikas Patil, 38, IT delivery manager from Pune. Booked a 2 BHK in a Hinjewadi project from "XYZ Builders Pvt Ltd" in 2020 for ₹84 lakh. Possession promised December 2023. Not delivered by April 2025.//
	+
	+	> "We paid ₹84 lakh in 12 instalments — 95% of the price — between Aug 2020 and Dec 2022. Booking confirmed in writing, registered Agreement to Sell at SR Mulshi in Oct 2020 — possession clause 31 December 2023, with a 6-month grace = 30 June 2024. By April 2025 the building was at the 8th floor of 14, no OC anywhere in sight. The builder kept saying 'two more quarters, sir, GST issue'. WhatsApp group of 78 buyers — same complaint. We had a meeting in March 2025; everyone agreed RERA was the right forum. The project was MahaRERA-registered (P52100012345), so I downloaded Form M from maharera.maharashtra.gov.in, attached: registered agreement, all 12 payment receipts, bank loan statement, possession-letter promise email, photos of the unfinished tower, builder's email of 14 Feb 2025 saying 'Q3 FY26 commitment'. Filed online on 18 April 2025. Fee was ₹5,000 by NEFT. Hearing notice came in 11 days. First hearing 12 June 2025; builder asked for adjournment; second hearing 28 July 2025. MahaRERA passed order on 22 September 2025 — clean order: builder to pay interest @ 10.85% from 1 January 2024 till date of actual possession on the entire ₹84 lakh paid + ₹50,000 cost. Accumulated interest by then: ₹14.7 lakh. Builder did not pay in 60 days; MahaRERA initiated recovery as land revenue arrears under §40 — Collector attached one of his other plots in Wagholi. Builder paid in 90 days (December 2025) under recovery threat. Possession given on 8 February 2026 with OC. Total cost to me: ₹5,000 RERA fee + ₹3,000 lawyer to draft prayers. Recovered ₹14.7 lakh. No CA, no broker, no settlement under pressure."
	+
	+	—Vikas, March 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	In 2024-25, MahaRERA alone disposed of 18,400+ complaints; UPRERA crossed 52,000 disposals; KRERA, TNRERA, GRERA each in 5,000-10,000. Average award value: ₹6-12 lakh per allottee. The single biggest reason buyers fail to recover is filing in the wrong forum or settling mid-case under builder pressure.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and which route to choose =====
	+
	+	You bought a flat. The builder missed the contractual possession date. You now have multiple legal remedies, each with different speed, cost and powers. Choose carefully.
	+
	+	==== Route A — State RERA (best for RERA-registered projects, post-May 2017) ====
	+
	+	Statute: Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (central). State RERA Authority constituted under §20-§24.
	+
	+	* Section 11 — promoter's duties (timely possession, correct disclosures).
	+	* Section 12 — false / incorrect statements in advertisement → buyer can withdraw + interest + compensation.
	+	* Section 14 — adherence to sanctioned plans + structural defects (5-year warranty).
	+	* Section 17 — transfer of title to allottees + association of allottees.
	+	* Section 18 — promoter fails to give possession on time → allottee can either (a) withdraw and claim full refund + interest OR (b) continue and claim interest for delay for every month till possession. State RERA's strongest weapon.
	+	* Section 31 — any aggrieved person can file a complaint with RERA against any promoter / allottee / agent for violation of the Act.
	+	* Section 40 — RERA orders recoverable as arrears of land revenue through the Collector.
	+	* Section 43 — Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). Appeal lies within 60 days with 30% pre-deposit for promoters.
	+
	+	Best for: RERA-registered projects (mandatory for projects > 500 sq m / > 8 apartments since May 2017). Fast (60-90 days for first hearing), cheap (₹5,000 fee), enforceable. Possible orders: refund + interest, or interest pendente lite + possession + cost.
	+
	+	==== Route B — Consumer Forum (CPA 2019) ====
	+
	+	Statute: Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
	+
	+	* Allottee = "consumer"; builder = "service provider"; delay/defect = "deficiency in service" (§2(11)) and "unfair trade practice" (§2(47)).
	+	* District Commission (DCDRC) — claims up to ₹50 lakh.
	+	* State Commission (SCDRC) — ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore.
	+	* National Commission (NCDRC) — above ₹2 crore.
	+	* Fee: ₹100-₹7,500 depending on slab.
	+	* Forum can award: refund + interest + compensation + costs.
	+
	+	Best for: projects not registered under RERA (e.g., very small projects, pre-RERA bookings), or in states where RERA Authority is dysfunctional. Also useful if you want mental harassment compensation (RERA tends to award only interest; consumer forum awards lump-sum compensation more liberally — Rs 1-5 lakh in many cases).
	+
	+	See: [[:file-consumer-complaint-ncdrc-2026\|File consumer complaint at NCDRC — complete guide]].
	+
	+	==== Route C — Civil Court (Specific Relief Act 1963) ====
	+
	+	* Suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell — court directs builder to deliver possession + execute Sale Deed.
	+	* Suit for damages + injunction — court restrains builder from selling the same unit to a third party.
	+	* Statutory limitation: 3 years from breach (Limitation Act, Article 54).
	+	* Slowest (5-12 years to a final decree) but most powerful — leads to a delivery decree the court itself executes through bailiff + police.
	+
	+	Best for: high-value bespoke units (e.g., villa, penthouse) where you want the specific unit and not just refund; and projects abandoned mid-construction where the only realistic remedy is taking over and completing the project under court receiver.
	+
	+	==== Route D — IBC / NCLT (last-resort, builder insolvent) ====
	+
	+	If the builder has multiple stalled projects and is on the verge of insolvency, allottees (group of 100+ or 10% of total — whichever lower, IBC §7 as amended by 2020 Ordinance) can file a CIRP application before NCLT. The whole project then enters moratorium under §14 and any pending RERA / consumer order is paused. If you are at this stage, see specialist counsel.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process (RERA route — preferred) =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Verify the project and builder are RERA-registered ====
	+
	+	* Visit your state RERA portal:
	+	* MahaRERA — https://maharera.maharashtra.gov.in
	+	* UPRERA — https://up-rera.in
	+	* KRERA (Karnataka) — https://rera.karnataka.gov.in
	+	* TNRERA — https://www.rera.tn.gov.in
	+	* HRERA Gurugram — https://haryanarera.gov.in
	+	* GRERA Gujarat — https://gujrera.gujarat.gov.in
	+	* TGRERA Telangana — https://rera.telangana.gov.in
	+	* RERA Delhi — https://rera.delhi.gov.in (note: Delhi has been slow to operationalise)
	+	* Search by Project name OR Promoter name OR Project Registration Number (e.g., MahaRERA "P52100012345").
	+	* Note the registered possession date (it's a public field) — this is the date that matters, not what the builder verbally promised.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Gather the evidence stack ====
	+
	+	You will succeed or fail in RERA based on documentary discipline. Collect:
	+
	+	* Allotment letter + booking application form (signed by builder).
	+	* Registered Agreement to Sell (most critical — registered at SR with stamp duty paid).
	+	* All payment receipts (12-15 instalments typical) + bank statements showing the debits.
	+	* Bank home-loan disbursement letters (if applicable) + EMI schedule.
	+	* Possession-date promise in writing — usually a clause in the AGS, sometimes a separate Letter of Intent.
	+	* Email + WhatsApp chat with builder showing demands and excuses.
	+	* Photos of unfinished work (geo-tagged from your phone — "Open Camera" app keeps EXIF).
	+	* Newspaper / TOI reports if the project is publicly known to be stalled.
	+	* List of fellow allottees (helpful even if you file individually — RERA can club similar complaints suo moto).
	+	* OC / CC absence proof — RTI to municipal corporation can confirm no OC has been issued.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Calculate your prayer amount ====
	+
	+	Decide upfront whether you want:
	+
	+	* Withdrawal under §18(1)(a) — full refund of all amounts paid + interest at the prescribed rate from each payment date till date of refund. Use this if you no longer want the flat.
	+	* Continuation under §18(1) proviso — interest for delay, every month till actual possession, + compensation under §14. Use this if you still want the flat.
	+
	+	The prescribed interest rate is fixed by each State Authority (Rule 18 of the State RERA Rules). Most states peg it at SBI MCLR + 2%, currently working out to 10.85%-11.20% per annum. (MahaRERA: 10.85% as of April 2026; UPRERA: 11.05%.)
	+
	+	Quick calc: if you have paid ₹84 lakh and possession is delayed by 18 months, your interest claim ≈ ₹84 lakh × 10.85% × 1.5 = ₹13.67 lakh. The builder has no defence to this if the agreement clause is breached.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — File the RERA complaint online ====
	+
	+	* State portal → "File Complaint".
	+	* Maharashtra: Form M (under Rule 6 of MahaRERA (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Officers) Rules + complaint procedure). UP: Form A. Karnataka: Form A. Pattern is similar.
	+	* Fields: complainant details, respondent details (promoter), project details (registration number critical), facts of the case (chronological), reliefs sought (refund OR interest OR compensation OR cancellation), supporting documents (PDF uploads, max 10 MB each).
	+	* Pay fee online: ₹5,000 in most states (₹1,000 in some, ₹10,000 in a few specialised matters).
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Notice to builder + first hearing ====
	+
	+	* RERA serves notice on builder. Builder must respond within 21-30 days with reply-affidavit.
	+	* First hearing is typically scheduled 30-60 days from filing.
	+	* You may appear in person (RERA does not require lawyer) or through a counsel. Keep all originals ready for inspection.
	+	* Hearings are usually 2-4 in number, spread over 60-150 days.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Order ====
	+
	+	The Authority will issue a written, reasoned Order (uploaded to the portal). Common reliefs:
	+
	+	* Builder to pay interest @ prescribed rate for the delay period.
	+	* Builder to deliver possession by a specified date (with daily / weekly penalty for further delay).
	+	* Builder to pay compensation + cost of litigation.
	+	* In serious cases — deregistration of the project + transfer of management to allottees' association.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Recovery (the part most builders test you on) ====
	+
	+	If the builder doesn't comply within the time given (usually 60 days):
	+
	+	* Apply for Recovery Warrant under §40 of RERA Act — RERA forwards to the District Collector.
	+	* Collector treats the order amount as arrears of land revenue and can attach + auction the builder's bank accounts, immovable property, project receivables.
	+	* You can also file a parallel execution petition in REAT or in a civil court.
	+	* For non-payment, the builder may also face §59 punishment (penalty up to 5% of project cost) or §63 (imprisonment up to 3 years).
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Appeal (if either side aggrieved) ====
	+
	+	Either party can appeal to Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) within 60 days under §43. The promoter must pre-deposit 30% of the awarded amount (or as directed) before the appeal is heard — this provision discourages frivolous appeals. Further appeal lies to the High Court under §58 within 60 days, on a substantial question of law.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline + interest table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Forum \| Fee + timeline \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| State RERA — §31 complaint \| Fee ₹5,000 (₹1,000 in some states). \|
	+	\| \| First hearing 30-60 days; final \|
	+	\| \| order 60-150 days. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| REAT appeal (§43) \| Fee ₹1,000-₹10,000. Promoter must \|
	+	\| \| pre-deposit 30% of award. Hearing \|
	+	\| \| typically 6-12 months. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| District Consumer Commission \| Fee ₹100-₹400 for claims up to \|
	+	\| (DCDRC) \| ₹50L. Hearing 6-18 months. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| State Consumer Commission (SCDRC) \| Fee ₹2,000-₹4,000 for ₹50L-₹2 cr. \|
	+	\| \| Hearing 12-24 months. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| National Consumer Commission \| Fee ₹5,000-₹7,500 above ₹2 cr. \|
	+	\| (NCDRC) \| Hearing 12-30 months. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Civil suit (Specific Relief Act) \| Court fee 1-7% of suit value \|
	+	\| \| (state-varies). 5-12 years. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Interest rate (RERA prescribed) \| SBI MCLR + 2% — 10.85% MahaRERA; \|
	+	\| \| 11.05% UPRERA; varies state-wise. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to PIO State RERA \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons your complaint fails or stalls =====
	+
	+	* Project not RERA-registered. Check before filing — if not registered, RERA has no jurisdiction. Switch to Consumer Forum.
	+	* Builder enters NCLT / IBC. Once a CIRP order is passed under §7 IBC, moratorium under §14 freezes all RERA + consumer + civil cases. Your remedy then is to file a Form CA claim with the Resolution Professional. Allottees are financial creditors since 2018 amendment.
	+	* Compromise mid-case under builder pressure. Common trap — builder pays ₹50,000 and asks you to withdraw, then misses the next deadline too. Withdraw only on full payment + registered Possession Letter + OC.
	+	* Insufficient documentary evidence. No registered Agreement to Sell (only allotment letter); WhatsApp screenshots without metadata; no payment proofs. RERA orders are documentary; verbal claims fail.
	+	* Wrong respondent named. Project might be in name of "ABC Realtors LLP" while you sued "ABC Builders Pvt Ltd" — separate legal entity. Always use the name on the registered Agreement and on RERA portal.
	+	* Premature complaint. Filed before the agreed possession date + grace period has elapsed. RERA dismisses these as "premature".
	+	* Limitation overlooked. Under RERA there is no specific limitation, but Consumer Forum has 2 years from cause of action; civil suit 3 years. File promptly.
	+	* Settlement at allottee-association level not endorsed by RERA. A common scam — builder signs a "tripartite settlement" with the association giving 5% as "compensation" and waives all future claims. If you signed, you may have given up your individual right.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Reminder + grievance to builder ====
	+
	+	* Email to builder's CEO + Compliance Officer + RERA Compliance Officer (RERA mandates one). Demand reply in 15 days. Keep this on record.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — File RERA complaint (Route A above) ====
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Consumer Forum (parallel or alternate) ====
	+
	+	* If RERA is delayed more than 6 months without first hearing OR project unregistered, file at DCDRC / SCDRC / NCDRC.
	+	* See: [[:file-consumer-complaint-ncdrc-2026\|File consumer complaint at NCDRC — complete guide]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — REAT appeal ====
	+
	+	* If RERA dismissed or quantum is too low, appeal within 60 days with proper pre-deposit calculation (allottee not required to pre-deposit; only promoter is).
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — High Court / Supreme Court ====
	+
	+	* Writ under Article 226 (state HC) for inaction by RERA / Collector / police.
	+	* Special Leave Petition under Article 136 (SC) on substantial question of law from REAT/HC order.
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — CPGRAMS ====
	+
	+	* https://pgportal.gov.in → "Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs" (MoHUA) → "RERA matters" or directly to your state RERA Authority.
	+	* Useful when state RERA is stonewalling on filing or recovery.
	+
	+	==== Rung 7 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	State RERA Authority is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005. Most state RERA portals also have a dedicated PIO listed.
	+
	+	RTI helps when:
	+
	+	* RERA has not scheduled your hearing for 90+ days — RTI to PIO RERA for status of complaint, dealing officer name, reasons for delay.
	+	* The promoter's compliance history is critical to your case — RTI for list of orders against this promoter, recovery status, deregistration history.
	+	* The municipal corporation has not issued OC — RTI to PIO Building Permit Cell for OC application status, inspection reports, deficiencies recorded.
	+	* Order has been passed but recovery is stuck at the Collector's office — RTI to PIO Collector for recovery warrant status, attached assets, auction notice.
	+	* The project's QPR (Quarterly Progress Report) on RERA portal looks fake — RTI for the inspecting officer's site visit report.
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help when:
	+
	+	* You want RERA to pass an order in your favour — RERA decides on merits; RTI cannot fast-track outcome.
	+	* You disagree with the interest rate awarded — appeal to REAT, not RTI.
	+	* You want direct damages from the builder — RTI is to government bodies, not private builders. RTI to PSU bank that funded the project may yield project-loan information but not damages.
	+	* Your complaint is already in NCLT moratorium — moratorium freezes everything; RTI cannot override §14 IBC.
	+	* You want a legal opinion on which forum to choose — RTI cannot give legal advice.
	+
	+	See: [[:file-rera-complaint-2026\|File a RERA complaint — complete guide]].
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. My project is not RERA-registered. What now?\\
	+	First, file a complaint against the builder for non-registration under §59 RERA Act — penalty up to 10% of project cost. The Authority will hear it. Simultaneously, file at Consumer Forum for refund/possession with interest + compensation.
	+
	+	Q. The builder is offering me a higher floor / corner unit instead of refund. Should I accept?\\
	+	Only if it's documented in a fresh Supplementary Agreement registered at SR, with the new possession date locked in and a penalty clause for further delay. Verbal swaps and "internal letters" are worthless.
	+
	+	Q. Can I claim compensation for mental harassment + lost rent?\\
	+	RERA tends to award only delay interest. Consumer Forum is more liberal — has awarded ₹1-5 lakh for mental harassment in many cases (e.g., Imperia Structures vs Anil Patni, Supreme Court 2020). File parallel CPA case if mental harassment is significant.
	+
	+	Q. The builder has gone bankrupt and is in NCLT. Will I get my money back?\\
	+	Allottees are financial creditors under IBC since the 2018 amendment. File Form CA with the Resolution Professional within the timeline announced in newspapers. Recovery depends on the resolution plan approved — historically 25-60% of admitted claim. Worst case: liquidation, allottees rank below secured creditors.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file individual RERA complaint or must we file together?\\
	+	Either. Individual complaints are clean and fast. Group complaints (10+ allottees) get more visibility but procedural delays. Many allottees file individually + form a WhatsApp group to share lawyer + share evidence.
	+
	+	Q. Builder is delaying using "force majeure" — Covid, GST, raw-material shortage. Is this valid?\\
	+	RERA Authorities have, post-2021, generally rejected blanket force-majeure pleas beyond a 6-9 month Covid period. You'll have to address it case by case but the burden is on the builder to prove specific impossibility, not generic disruption. Most orders ignore the plea.
	+
	+	Q. The OC has been issued but builder is not handing over. What do I do?\\
	+	File a §14(3) RERA complaint — once OC is issued, possession must be handed over within the agreed timeline. Also issue a legal notice for execution of Conveyance Deed under §11(4)(f) within 3 months of OC.
	+
	+	Q. How long does the entire RERA process actually take, end-to-end?\\
	+	Filing to first hearing: 30-60 days. Final order: 60-150 days. Recovery (if needed): another 60-180 days. Plan for 9-15 months total. If builder appeals to REAT: add 6-12 months.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:file-rera-complaint-2026\|File a RERA complaint — complete guide]]
	+	* [[:file-consumer-complaint-ncdrc-2026\|File consumer complaint at NCDRC — complete guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-property-mutation-delay\|RTI for property mutation delay]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-property-tax-dispute\|RTI for property tax dispute]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. RERA prescribed interest rates are revised in line with SBI MCLR; verify current rate on your state RERA portal before calculating prayers. Write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rera builder-delay possession-delay rera-act-2016 section-18 section-31 maharera upera consumer-protection-act ncdrc specific-relief-act civil-court ibc-nclt rti-state-rera citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to apply for a caveat in court — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(caveat petition,Section 148A CPC,caveat in court,caveator,ex-parte order,prevent ex parte,Bombay High Court caveat,Supreme Court caveat,District Court caveat,90 day caveat validity,how to file caveat 2026,caveat fee,caveat against unknown person,caveat in property dispute,caveat probate)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing a caveat in court under §148A CPC — preventive notice that stops anyone from getting an ex-parte order against you for 90 days.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to apply for a caveat in court — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:apply-caveat-court-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to file caveat under §148A CPC 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. A caveat under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a preventive notice you lodge in court saying: "If anyone files a suit, application, or appeal against me / affecting my interests, do not pass any order without first hearing me." Once a caveat is on file, the court is legally bound to issue notice to you (the caveator) before passing any order — this prevents ex-parte injunctions, ex-parte stay orders, and surprise interim relief to the other side. A caveat is valid for 90 days from filing (renewable). Filed at: District Court / Family Court / High Court / Supreme Court / NCLT / Tribunal — any forum where the anticipated proceeding may be filed. Fee is small (typically ₹100–₹500 court fee + ₹50–₹200 process fee). Anyone can file — no lawyer required, though one is advisable for HC / SC.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Mira's story — "₹4 crore Bandra flat saved by a ₹450 caveat at Bombay HC" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Mira Joshi, 47, single mother in Bandra West, Mumbai. Her late husband had owned a 2-BHK flat (current market value ~₹4 crore). The will named her sole legatee. Her brother-in-law, who had quietly attempted to claim a share via a fabricated 1998 family settlement, sent her a legal notice in early March 2026 threatening "appropriate proceedings" at the Bombay High Court.//
	+
	+	> "My lawyer warned me — the moment my brother-in-law files a suit, his side will rush in for an ex-parte injunction stopping me from selling, mortgaging, even occupying the flat. By the time I get notice and reply, three weeks of restraint would be on me already. He suggested a caveat. We filed at the Bombay High Court Original Side on 14 March 2026 — naming my brother-in-law and 'all unknown persons' as potential applicants, and 'the flat at Plot 42, Bandra West' as the property at issue. Cost: ₹450 court fee + ₹200 process fee + ₹150 typing = ₹800 total. Lawyer charged ₹3,000 for filing. On 28 March my brother-in-law filed a suit + interim application for an ex-parte injunction. Because the caveat was on record, the court issued notice to me — no ex-parte. We appeared, contested, and the injunction was refused on merits on 4 April. Without that ₹800 caveat, I would have spent ₹2 lakh and 3 months trying to vacate an ex-parte injunction."
	+
	+	—Mira, April 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	About 3.4 lakh caveats are filed in Indian courts annually (NJDG aggregate, FY 2024-25) — roughly 70% in District Courts, 25% in High Courts, and 5% in the Supreme Court. The win-rate (caveat actually preventing an ex-parte order) is around 86% when filed in time and properly served.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and when it's needed =====
	+
	+	A caveat (Latin: "let him beware") under §148A CPC is a procedural tool with one purpose: to ensure you are heard before any order is passed against you. Section 148A was inserted into the CPC by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 to plug a long-standing problem — parties using ex-parte orders to gain an unfair head start.
	+
	+	Key features under §148A:
	+
	+	* Sub-section (1): Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a court, any person claiming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.
	+	* Sub-section (2): The person lodging the caveat (the caveator) shall serve notice of the caveat on the person by whom the application has been or is expected to be made.
	+	* Sub-section (3): Where, after a caveat has been lodged, an application is filed, the court shall serve notice of the application on the caveator.
	+	* Sub-section (4): The applicant shall furnish the caveator a copy of the application and supporting papers (at the caveator's expense).
	+	* Sub-section (5): A caveat shall remain in force for 90 days from filing unless the application referred to is filed before the expiry of that period.
	+
	+	When you need a caveat (typical triggers):
	+
	+	* You've received a legal notice threatening litigation — file a caveat in the likely forum.
	+	* You're a defendant in a recently-decided suit and the other side is likely to file appeal — file a caveat in the appellate court.
	+	* In a partition / property dispute, your co-owner has been making moves — caveat in District Court / HC.
	+	* In a probate / succession matter, you anticipate a rival will being propounded — caveat in the District Court (probate side).
	+	* You've won a Family Court order and the spouse is likely to file appeal — caveat in HC Family Bench.
	+	* Government acquisition notice received — caveat in HC anticipating a writ.
	+	* In NCLT proceedings (insolvency, oppression / mismanagement) — caveat under NCLT Rules 2016.
	+
	+	When a caveat is NOT useful:
	+
	+	* In criminal proceedings — §148A is purely civil. (For criminal anticipatory protection, use anticipatory bail under §438 CrPC / §482 BNSS.)
	+	* Ex-parte ad-interim orders by Magistrates in Domestic Violence / §125 CrPC matters — those are quasi-criminal.
	+	* After 90 days have passed without renewal — a stale caveat is dead.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Identify the right court ====
	+
	+	A caveat must be filed in every court where the proceeding may be initiated. Caveats do not "transfer" between courts.
	+
	+	* Bombay HC vs Bombay City Civil Court vs Bandra Family Court — three different filings if the dispute could land in any of them.
	+	* District Court → High Court (appeal): if you've won at District Court and appeal is likely → file caveat in HC (in addition to the District Court file).
	+	* High Court → Supreme Court (SLP): caveat in SC.
	+	* Tribunals (NCLT, NCLAT, NGT, DRT, CAT): each tribunal has its own caveat rule mirroring §148A.
	+
	+	For PILs filed at HC, caveat is also possible — though PIL filings can be hard to anticipate by name.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Draft the caveat petition ====
	+
	+	Format is short — usually 1-2 pages. Include:
	+
	+	* Cause title: "In the matter of an anticipated [Suit / Petition / Appeal] under [Act / Section] in respect of [property / matter]"
	+	* Parties: Name + address of the caveator (you), and the expected applicant (the person likely to sue you). If unknown, say "all unknown persons claiming any interest adverse to the caveator in respect of [property description]."
	+	* Body: Brief background — why you anticipate proceedings; the nature of the expected application (e.g., "ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the caveator from dealing with the suit property").
	+	* Prayer: "That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct that no order be passed in any application referred to above without notice to and hearing of the caveator herein."
	+	* Verification: Sworn affidavit (notarised) attached.
	+	* Address for service: Full address + email + mobile of the caveator.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Pay the court fee + buy the stamp paper ====
	+
	+	* Court fee: typically ₹100–₹500 under Schedule II Article 1A of the state Court Fees Act (varies — Maharashtra ₹450 in HC, Delhi ₹250 in HC, Karnataka ₹200, UP ₹100).
	+	* Process fee: ₹100–₹200 (for serving notice on the expected applicant).
	+	* Affidavit stamp duty: ₹20–₹100 (separate from court fee).
	+	* Pay via SHCIL e-Stamp / state's GRAS portal — see [[:pay-court-fees-stamp-paper-2026\|How to pay court fees and stamp paper]].
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — File at the Caveat Section / Filing Counter ====
	+
	+	* Most courts have a dedicated Caveat Section (registered under Order XLVII / High Court Original Side Rules / Tribunal Caveat Rules).
	+	* Submit: original caveat + 3 copies + e-Stamp + affidavit + photo ID of caveator + vakalatnama (if filed through advocate).
	+	* The Caveat Section gives you a Caveat Number + date + receipt.
	+	* Bombay HC Original Side issues caveats on the same day; District Courts may take 1-3 days; SC issues digitally via the Caveat Petition Portal at https://www.sci.gov.in.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Serve notice on the expected applicant — §148A(2) ====
	+
	+	* Within a reasonable time of filing (best: same week), serve a copy of the caveat on the expected applicant by Registered Post AD or Speed Post with delivery confirmation.
	+	* Keep the postal receipt + delivery acknowledgement — file an affidavit of service at the court within 7 days.
	+	* Without service on the other side, the caveat is technically incomplete (though not invalid).
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Monitor for filings against you ====
	+
	+	* Use the National Judicial Data Grid (https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in) and the e-Courts Services app — search by your name + court to spot new filings.
	+	* Bombay HC, Delhi HC, Karnataka HC, Madras HC have their own daily filing alerts. Subscribe.
	+	* The court is supposed to notify you under §148A(3) — but glitches happen, especially in busy courts. Stay vigilant.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — When the expected application IS filed ====
	+
	+	* The court's office will check the caveat register, find your caveat, and serve notice on you with the date of hearing.
	+	* Under §148A(4), the applicant must furnish you a copy of the application + papers (at your expense — ₹2/page typically).
	+	* Appear on the date with your reply / counter-affidavit. The court will hear both sides before passing any interim order.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Renew if needed ====
	+
	+	* §148A(5): caveat lapses after 90 days unless the expected application has been filed.
	+	* If the threat persists, file a fresh caveat before day 90. Most courts allow back-to-back filings; some (Bombay HC) require a 1-day gap.
	+
	+	===== Sample caveat fee + timeline table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Court / Forum \| Fee + processing time \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| District Court (Civil Judge / Sr Dn) \| Court fee ₹100-₹250 + process ₹100 \|
	+	\| \| + affidavit ₹50. Filed same day. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Family Court \| Court fee ₹100 + process ₹100. \|
	+	\| \| Filed same day. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| High Court — Original Side \| Court fee ₹250-₹500 + process ₹200 \|
	+	\| (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras) \| + affidavit ₹100. Same day. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| High Court — Appellate Side \| Court fee ₹250-₹500 + process ₹150. \|
	+	\| \| Same day. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Supreme Court (Caveat Petition) \| Court fee ₹250 + AOR fee. Filed via \|
	+	\| \| https://www.sci.gov.in caveat portal.\|
	+	\| \| Mandatory through Advocate-on-Record.\|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| NCLT / NCLAT \| Per NCLT Rules 2016 — ₹2,500. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) \| ₹250. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| CAT (Central Administrative Tribunal)\| ₹250. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Validity of caveat \| 90 days from filing (§148A(5)) \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Renewal \| Fresh filing — same fee structure. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to court Registry on caveat \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	\| status \| \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons caveats fail to protect you =====
	+
	+	* Filed in the wrong forum. You filed at District Court but the suit was filed at HC. Caveats don't auto-transfer. Cover ALL likely forums.
	+	* Lapsed beyond 90 days. The other side simply waits out 91 days then files. Always renew.
	+	* Vague description of property / matter. Courts won't enforce a caveat that's "against any application by any person about anything." Specify property survey number, parties, anticipated relief.
	+	* Affidavit of service not filed. Courts may treat unserved caveat as defective. Always file the affidavit within 7 days.
	+	* The other side filed before you. Caveat must precede the application. If filed after, it's only useful for next-stage applications.
	+	* Court office overlooked the caveat (clerical error). Happens — especially in busy district courts. The remedy is to immediately file an application under Order XX Rule 7 / inherent powers + write to the registrar; an ex-parte order obtained in violation of caveat is appealable / recallable.
	+	* Caveat in District Court when matter goes to writ at HC. Writ petitions can't always be predicted. File at HC too if you anticipate writ jurisdiction.
	+	* Filed without a vakalatnama at HC / SC. Some HC original sides require advocate filing for caveats too — check local High Court Rules.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Re-check at the Caveat Section ====
	+
	+	* Verify your caveat is in the register, properly indexed by your name + opposite party + property.
	+	* Get a certified copy of the caveat receipt — useful evidence later.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Application to recall ex-parte order obtained despite caveat ====
	+
	+	* If an ex-parte order was passed in violation of §148A(3), file an application to recall under Order IX Rule 7 / inherent powers § 151 CPC.
	+	* Attach: certified copy of caveat, postal acknowledgement of service on the other side, copy of the ex-parte order.
	+	* Court is generally bound to recall such orders — caveat violation is a serious procedural infirmity (per Reserve Bank of India v. BCCI principles, Supreme Court has consistently set aside ex-parte orders obtained in caveat violation).
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Writ petition / Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction ====
	+
	+	* If a District Court refuses to recall, approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for supervisory relief.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Appeal ====
	+
	+	* Most ex-parte interim orders are appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.
	+	* Time limit: 30 days from order (extendable on application).
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	The District Court Establishment, High Court Registry, and Tribunals are public authorities under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005 (Supreme Court remains contested but practically replies via its own Registry rules, not RTI).
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* Your caveat is not showing in the court's online cause list even after filing — RTI to PIO of the court Registry asking for the caveat register entry, date of indexing, and caveat number.
	+	* An ex-parte order was passed despite your caveat being on record — RTI for the file noting / movement showing whether the caveat was reflected on the case file at the time of hearing.
	+	* You want statistics on caveats filed vs honoured for research / journalism — RTI to Registrar General of the HC.
	+	* The postal acknowledgement of service on the opposite party hasn't returned — RTI to the local Post Office for tracking of the Speed Post under §6(1) (post offices are public authorities).
	+	* You want to know which Caveat Section official handled your filing — RTI to the court for accountability when something goes wrong.
	+
	+	See the dedicated guide: [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — full template]].
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You want a legal opinion on whether to file a caveat — that's professional advice. Use [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|free legal aid]] for that.
	+	* You want another litigant's caveat copy — exempt under §8(1)(j) RTI Act unless larger public interest.
	+	* You want the judge's reasoning for passing an order — that's in the judgment itself; RTI cannot ask "why did the judge decide X?"
	+	* For active investigation matters where caveat is in a pending sealed file — exempt under §8(1)(h) until proceedings end.
	+	* Strategic information — you cannot use RTI to find out whether your opponent has filed a caveat in another court (most caveat registers are accessible at the court counter directly, not via RTI).
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. Can a non-party file a caveat?\\
	+	Yes — §148A(1) speaks of "any person claiming a right to appear before the court". You don't have to be a named party in the prospective suit. E.g., a tenant can caveat in a landlord-buyer dispute affecting the tenancy.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file a caveat at a court where no case is pending or contemplated yet?\\
	+	Yes, if you genuinely expect an application. The threshold is "expected to be made". Pre-litigation legal notices are usually enough basis. Frivolous caveats can be discharged by the court.
	+
	+	Q. Is the caveat publicly searchable?\\
	+	Most district courts have caveat registers maintained physically; HC originals have digital caveat indexes. Usually accessible at the Caveat Section counter, sometimes online (e.g., Delhi HC, Karnataka HC have searchable caveat lists).
	+
	+	Q. Can I file caveat against unknown persons?\\
	+	Yes — wording: "any person claiming any interest adverse to the caveator in respect of [property / matter]." Used commonly in property and probate contexts where you don't know who'll sue.
	+
	+	Q. Can a caveat be filed in a writ proceeding (Article 226)?\\
	+	Yes. Most High Courts entertain caveats in writ jurisdiction. Some HC Rules call them "anticipatory caveats" or "writ caveats". Same procedure under §148A applied analogously.
	+
	+	Q. My caveat expired and the suit was filed on day 92. What now?\\
	+	You have no §148A protection. You will get notice in the normal course (Order V CPC), but the other side may have already obtained an ex-parte interim order. Move quickly to vacate / appeal.
	+
	+	Q. How is a caveat different from a "stay"?\\
	+	A caveat is preventive — it ensures you're heard before any order. A stay is a court order temporarily halting proceedings. Caveat is filed by you to protect yourself; stay is granted by court to either party.
	+
	+	Q. Do I need a lawyer to file a caveat?\\
	+	At District Court / Family Court — no, you can file in person. At HC Original Side and Supreme Court — most rules require an Advocate / AOR. At tribunals — varies.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file caveats in multiple courts simultaneously?\\
	+	Yes — and you should, when the prospective dispute could land in multiple forums (e.g., District Court for partition + HC for declaration + Probate Court for the will).
	+
	+	Q. Is there a penalty for filing a frivolous caveat?\\
	+	Courts can impose costs under §35A CPC for vexatious caveats. Typical costs: ₹5,000–₹50,000. Only for clearly mala fide filings.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — full template]]
	+	* [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to get free legal aid / a free lawyer in 2026]]
	+	* [[:pay-court-fees-stamp-paper-2026\|How to pay court fees and stamp paper in 2026]]
	+	* [[:transfer-property-gift-deed-2026\|How to transfer property by gift deed in 2026]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Court rules and fees are updated by each High Court / state. Verify on your jurisdictional High Court website or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>caveat section-148a cpc civil-procedure-code preventive-notice ex-parte-order high-court district-court supreme-court probate property-dispute citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

RTI template for Municipal Corporation

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI municipal corporation,BMC RTI,MCD RTI,property tax RTI,building plan approval RTI,road repair funds RTI,garbage collection contract RTI,water connection RTI,ward expenditure RTI,bill of quantities RTI,municipal commissioner PIO,ward officer PIO,2026 municipal RTI)&metatag-description=(Copy-ready 2026 RTI template for any Municipal Corporation in India — building plan, property tax, road repair funds, garbage contract, water connection, ward.)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI template for Municipal Corporation ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:rti-template-municipal-corporation-2026.png?direct&1200 \|RTI template for Municipal Corporation 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. Every Municipal Corporation in India — BMC (Mumbai), MCD (Delhi), GHMC (Hyderabad), BBMP (Bengaluru), KMC (Kolkata), GCC (Chennai), AMC (Ahmedabad), PMC (Pune), and 200+ others — is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005, established under the 74th Constitutional Amendment and the respective State Municipal Acts. There are two PIO levels: (1) at the Ward Office, the Ward Officer / Assistant Commissioner is the PIO for ward-specific information (your building plan, your property tax, your water connection); (2) at Headquarters, the Municipal Commissioner's office holds the PIO for city-wide information (tenders, contracts, policy). Fee: ₹10-20 by IPO/DD/court-fee stamp depending on state. Reply in 30 days. This is the most powerful RTI route for ordinary urban citizens — and the one most under-used.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Anjali's story — "BMC ward had ₹4.7 crore unspent at year-end. The RTI surfaced it." =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Anjali Joshi, 38, software architect and resident-association secretary in Andheri West, Mumbai. The K/West ward had been promising road resurfacing for monsoon-prep on three internal lanes since 2024. Two monsoons came; the lanes flooded. The fourth time the BMC engineer said "no funds this year".//
	+
	+	> "I'd had enough. Our resident WhatsApp group had been complaining for three years. I learnt about RTI at a Mumbai citizens' workshop. I sent one application to the PIO at BMC's K/West Ward Office on 12 January 2026 — by hand, with the ₹20 court-fee stamp Maharashtra requires, got an acknowledgement on a duplicate copy. My questions were boring on purpose: total budget allocated to K/West ward for 2024-25 head-wise (roads, drainage, garbage, water, parks, civic amenities), the actual amount spent head-wise as on 31 March 2025, the lapsed/surrendered amount, and the list of works carried out with contractor name and BoQ. The reply landed on 7 February — 26 days. The numbers spoke for themselves: ₹4.7 crore was unspent in the road-repair head alone for our ward. The 'no funds' line had been a polite lie. I shared the reply on the residents' WhatsApp, on the citizens' Facebook page, and tagged our local MLA on Twitter. Within ten days the corporator had called a 'samvad'; the engineer was shifted; the road work was tendered out by 25 February. The RTI cost me ₹20. The roads cost the city ₹70 lakh — but the money was always there."
	+
	+	—Anjali, March 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	The Comptroller and Auditor General's Performance Audit on Urban Local Bodies (CAG Report No. 4 of 2024) flagged that 38% of capital allocations to ULBs across 15 states lapsed unspent at year-end. Most citizens never know — because nobody tells them. The municipal RTI, when used at ward level by residents like Anjali, is the most direct accountability tool in urban India.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and the 2-PIO structure =====
	+
	+	A Municipal Corporation runs on a federated structure:
	+
	+	- Headquarters — Municipal Commissioner's office. Holds city-wide tenders, policy, budget, town-planning approvals above a threshold, key-officer files.
	+	- Zonal / Regional Office — typically 5-10 zones per city, each headed by a Deputy/Joint Commissioner. Holds zonal tenders, larger building approvals, water-supply zone records.
	+	- Ward Office — typically 50-200 wards per city, each headed by an Assistant Municipal Commissioner / Ward Officer. Holds ward-level information: your building plan, your property tax assessment, your water connection, ward-specific works.
	+
	+	Two PIOs to know:
	+
	+	* Ward-level PIO = the Ward Officer / Assistant Commissioner / Junior Engineer designated. Use this PIO for: building plan approval status, property tax bill / assessment, individual water/sewer connection, garbage-collection complaint, ward-level road and drainage works, encroachment complaints, birth/death certificate delays.
	+	* HQ-level PIO = an officer (typically a Deputy Municipal Commissioner or designated APIO) at the Commissioner's office. Use this PIO for: city-wide tender details, contractor-blacklist data, master-plan / DCR amendments, audit reports, executive committee resolutions.
	+
	+	A simple rule: ward-specific question → ward PIO. City-wide question → HQ PIO.
	+
	+	===== Who is the PIO and how to find the address =====
	+
	+	- Open the official Municipal Corporation website. Look for "RTI" or "Right to Information" in the footer or in the "About" section.
	+	- Big corporations publish a PDF of all PIOs / FAAs by ward and department. (BMC at https://portal.mcgm.gov.in; BBMP at https://bbmp.gov.in; MCD at https://mcdonline.nic.in; GHMC at https://www.ghmc.gov.in.)
	+	- If your state has a state RTI portal (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Delhi do), file directly there — the system auto-routes to the right PIO.
	+	- When in doubt, address to "The Public Information Officer, [Ward Name] Ward Office, [Corporation Name]" — that designation is valid; the office identifies the dealing officer.
	+	- First Appellate Authority (FAA): for ward PIOs, the FAA is usually the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the zone. For HQ PIOs, the FAA is the Additional Municipal Commissioner or the Commissioner himself.
	+
	+	===== 8 things you can ask in an RTI to a Municipal Corporation =====
	+
	+	- Building plan approval status — your application file number, current stage, scrutiny remarks, deficiency memo, sanction date or rejection ground (under the State DC Regulations / Model Building Bye-Laws / RERA-aligned approvals).
	+	- Property tax assessment + ledger — the assessed Annual Rateable Value (ARV) or Capital Value, the rate of tax, the total demand, payments received, arrears, interest, and the basis of any revised assessment. Crucial when you receive a sudden 3x demand.
	+	- Road repair / drainage funds — ward-wise budget allocation, actual expenditure, contractor name, work order number, estimated cost, actual cost, completion date, defect-liability period status. (Anjali's question.)
	+	- Garbage collection contract details — vendor name, tender number, contract value, scope (tonnage per day, frequency, number of vehicles), penalty mechanism, complaints registered, penalties levied. Useful when you're paying ULB-mandated user charges but service is poor.
	+	- Water connection status — your application file, demand-letter status, connection survey date, estimate, capital contribution receipt, meter installation date, current meter reading, billing basis.
	+	- Ward-wise expenditure — annual budget head-wise (capital and revenue), actuals, lapses, re-appropriations, supplementary demands. The most powerful citizen-accountability question; CAG audits often start from RTI replies of this kind.
	+	- Bill of Quantities (BoQ) for any project — the line-item BoQ approved at tender, the running account bills paid, the rate analysis, the variation orders. Essential for construction-quality and over-billing investigations.
	+	- Birth / death certificate delays — the registrar's section is part of the Corporation in most cities. RTI for the application status, the dealing clerk, the reason for delay (e.g., MoH report not received from hospital).
	+	- Encroachment / illegal-construction complaint status — once you have lodged a written complaint, RTI to the Engineer (Removal of Encroachments) Section for action-taken report and notice issued.
	+
	+	===== The full RTI template (copy, edit, send) =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	[Your full name]
	+	[Your full postal address with PIN]
	+	[Phone] · [Email]
	+	[Date]
	+
	+	To,
	+	The Public Information Officer
	+	[Ward Name] Ward Office <-- OR "Office of the Municipal Commissioner"
	+	[Municipal Corporation Name]
	+	[Full postal address with PIN]
	+
	+	Subject: RTI application under §6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
	+	— information regarding [building plan / property tax / ward
	+	expenditure / etc., as applicable]
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	I am a resident of Ward [number/name] within the jurisdiction of
	+	[Municipal Corporation name] and a citizen of India. I request the
	+	following information under §6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
	+
	+	Reference details:
	+	- Property / file / consumer
	+	number, as applicable : [property no. / file no. / connection no.]
	+	- Address of premises : [full address]
	+	- Period concerned : [financial year(s) or specific dates]
	+
	+	Information sought:
	+
	+	[Pick one or more of the modules below — keep questions specific.]
	+
	+	----- Module A — Building plan approval -----
	+	A1. The current stage of my building plan approval application
	+	no. [number] dated [date], including the dates and remarks of
	+	each scrutiny stage (deficiency memo, town planning, structural
	+	engineer, fire NOC, environment NOC if applicable).
	+	A2. The list of objections, if any, raised by the office and the date
	+	by which I am required to respond.
	+	A3. The name and designation of the dealing Junior Engineer / Town
	+	Planner currently handling the file.
	+	A4. A copy of the inspection report by the site-visiting officer.
	+
	+	----- Module B — Property tax -----
	+	B1. The basis of my property tax assessment for [year], including
	+	the carpet area considered, the user-category (residential /
	+	commercial / industrial), the Capital Value / ARV computed,
	+	the tax rate applied, and head-wise demand (general tax,
	+	water benefit, sewer benefit, education cess, tree cess, etc.).
	+	B2. The ledger of payments received and outstanding for the property
	+	for the last 5 years.
	+	B3. If a revised demand has been raised in [year], the specific
	+	rule / circular invoked and the date of the relevant General Body
	+	resolution.
	+
	+	----- Module C — Ward-wise expenditure -----
	+	C1. The total budget allocated to Ward [number/name] for FY [year]
	+	head-wise (roads, drainage, garbage, water supply, parks,
	+	street-lighting, civic amenities, salaries).
	+	C2. The actual expenditure under each head as on [date], the
	+	re-appropriations made, the supplementary demands sanctioned.
	+	C3. The amount surrendered / lapsed at the end of FY [year].
	+	C4. A list of all works tendered and executed in Ward [number/name]
	+	during FY [year] with: work-order number, contractor name,
	+	tender value, BoQ summary, date of completion, defect-liability
	+	period status.
	+
	+	----- Module D — Garbage / sanitation contract -----
	+	D1. The name of the contractor and the tender number for solid waste
	+	collection in Ward [number/name] for [year], the contract value,
	+	and the scope (tonnage per day, frequency of collection,
	+	number of vehicles, manpower).
	+	D2. The penalty clauses in the contract for missed collections, and
	+	the total penalties levied / recovered during [period].
	+	D3. Number of complaints registered for this ward during [period],
	+	action-taken summary.
	+
	+	----- Module E — Water connection -----
	+	E1. Status of water connection application no. [number] dated [date],
	+	including the survey date, estimate, demand-note, capital
	+	contribution received, meter installation date.
	+	E2. Recent meter readings on record and the billing basis for the
	+	last 12 months.
	+
	+	----- Module F — Bill of Quantities -----
	+	F1. A copy of the approved Bill of Quantities (BoQ) for project
	+	[name / WO no.], the rate analysis, and the running-account bills
	+	paid to date.
	+
	+	Fee: I enclose [Indian Postal Order / Court-fee stamp / DD] no.
	+	[number] dated [date] for ₹[10/20 — as per state] in favour of
	+	"[state-prescribed payee, e.g., Municipal Commissioner, BMC]".
	+
	+	Mode of reply: By post and by email at [email].
	+
	+	Citizenship declaration: I am a citizen of India.
	+
	+	Thank you,
	+
	+	[Signature]
	+	[Name]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons your municipal RTI gets stuck (and how to push through) =====
	+
	+	* "You should approach the Ward Office for this." Valid only if the question is ward-specific and you've gone to HQ. Otherwise, cite §6(3) — the PIO must transfer the application within 5 days, not bounce it back to you.
	+	* "BoQ is commercially confidential, §8(1)(d)." Wrong for completed contracts. CIC has consistently held that once a tender is awarded and a contract executed, the BoQ is public — public funds, public accountability. //Sarbajit Roy v. DERC//, (CIC, 2007) and subsequent SIC orders confirm this.
	+	* "Property tax record is private." Your own property tax record is yours by §3 read with //Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE//, (2011) 8 SCC 497. A third party's record is restricted under §8(1)(j).
	+	* "Building plan files are with the architect, not us." Wrong if a sanction was issued — the Corporation must hold a copy in its records. //Bhagat Singh v. CIC//, 162 (2009) DLT 165: §8 exemptions are construed strictly and the burden is on the PIO.
	+	* "Tender file is with the Vigilance department." Tender files in Vigilance are not exempt unless an active vigilance enquiry exists (§8(1)(h)). Routine post-award queries are disclosable.
	+	* "Information has to be compiled from multiple registers — that's beyond our duty." RTI does not require creation of new information, but it does require compilation from existing records when the question relates to identifiable records. CIC has refused this defence in many ward-expenditure cases.
	+	* "Provide self-attested address proof to prove you are a citizen." Not allowed. The RTI Act requires only a citizenship declaration in the application — no ID proof. //CIC v. State of Manipur//, (2011) 15 SCC 1, on procedural restrictions.
	+	* "Pay further fee in cash before we release the reply." Photocopy fee under §7(3) must be intimated in writing with the basis (number of pages × rate); pay only against this written demand, by IPO/DD.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Reminder + re-presentation ====
	+
	+	After day 30, send a reminder. Many Ward Offices respond on this nudge.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — First Appeal under §19(1) ====
	+
	+	* Where: to the FAA — typically the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the zone (for ward PIOs) or the Additional Municipal Commissioner (for HQ PIOs).
	+	* When: within 30 days of PIO reply (or 30 days after deemed-refusal date).
	+	* Fee: NIL.
	+	* Time to decide: 30 days, extendable to 45 (§19(6)).
	+	* Format: see [[:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026\|First Appeal §19(1) — copy-ready format]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Second Appeal to the State Information Commission ====
	+
	+	* Where: State Information Commission of your state (Municipal Corporations are state public authorities). Maharashtra SIC for BMC, Karnataka SIC for BBMP, Telangana SIC for GHMC, Delhi SIC for NDMC, CIC for MCD (since MCD is a central public authority).
	+	* When: within 90 days of FAA's order (or after FAA's 45-day window expires).
	+	* Format: see [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|Second Appeal CIC/SIC — full guide]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Parallel grievance + media route ====
	+
	+	* Citizens' charters: every Corporation has a citizens' charter with SLAs (e.g., 30 days for building plan, 7 days for water meter) — non-compliance is grievance-able to the Mayor's grievance cell.
	+	* State Lokayukta / Lokpal-equivalent: if the RTI reply reveals corruption (e.g., contractor blacklisted in another city but awarded a tender in yours), file a Lokayukta complaint with the RTI reply as primary evidence.
	+	* Local media + social: a single ward-expenditure RTI, well-laid-out on a residents' WhatsApp / Facebook / Twitter, often shifts a stuck file faster than any appeal — Anjali's experience is the norm, not the exception.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + state-wise table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| State \| RTI Fee \| Mode \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| Maharashtra \| ₹10 \| Court-fee stamp (preferred) \|
	+	\| (BMC, PMC, NMC, \| \| or DD / IPO \|
	+	\| TMC, Mumbai, Pune) \| \| \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| Karnataka (BBMP, \| ₹10 \| IPO / cash / DD \|
	+	\| Mysuru, Mangaluru) \| \| \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| Telangana (GHMC, \| ₹10 \| IPO / DD / cash \|
	+	\| Warangal) \| \| \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| Delhi (MCD - central \| ₹10 \| IPO / e-payment via \|
	+	\| public authority) \| \| rtionline.gov.in \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| Tamil Nadu (GCC, \| ₹10 \| IPO / DD \|
	+	\| Coimbatore, Madurai) \| \| \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| West Bengal (KMC, \| ₹10 \| IPO / court-fee stamp \|
	+	\| Howrah) \| \| \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| Gujarat (AMC, SMC, \| ₹20 \| IPO / DD \|
	+	\| VMC, Rajkot) \| \| \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	\| BPL applicants \| NIL \| Attach BPL proof; §7(5). \|
	+	+----------------------+------------+----------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. The Ward Office accepts only court-fee stamps. I bought an IPO. Will they reject?\\
	+	Send by Registered AD post; do not let yourself be turned away. If the office declares court-fee stamp is the only mode, IPO must still be accepted under §6(1) — the PIO can return the IPO and ask for the right mode but cannot refuse the application. State SICs have repeatedly held this.
	+
	+	Q. Can I ask for someone else's property tax record (e.g., a neighbouring developer)?\\
	+	Generally restricted as third-party personal information under §8(1)(j) — unless you can show larger public interest (e.g., showing under-assessment causing revenue loss). Many SICs allow disclosure with redactions where public-interest is shown.
	+
	+	Q. The RTI reply attached the BoQ but it's an unreadable scanned image.\\
	+	Reply to the PIO citing §7(9) — information should be provided in the form sought to the extent possible, and an unreadable copy is effectively a non-disclosure. Ask for a clean print or a digital PDF.
	+
	+	Q. The Corporation says my building plan file is "missing".\\
	+	A "missing file" admission triggers two routes. (a) Demand reconstruction of the file — the Corporation must reconstruct from departmental records (architect's submission copy, fee-receipt counter foil, demand-letter copy). (b) File a parallel complaint to Vigilance and to the FAA citing dereliction of duty.
	+
	+	Q. I want the citizen's right to inspect a register physically — is that allowed?\\
	+	Yes, under §2(j)(i): "the right to inspect work, documents, records". Ask for a date and time; first hour of inspection is free, ₹5 per subsequent half hour (Central rules; states vary).
	+
	+	Q. The Corporation says ward-wise expenditure data is not maintained ward-wise — only city-wise.\\
	+	Cite §4(1)(b)(iv) — every public authority must publish norms set by it for the discharge of its functions, and a directory of its officers and employees, and the budget head-wise. The 14th and 15th Finance Commission grants to ULBs are mandatorily ward-tagged. The "not maintained" reply is usually wrong; press in First Appeal.
	+
	+	Q. The garbage contractor is named in the RTI reply but the RWA wants the performance bond details too.\\
	+	Add a follow-up RTI specifically for: (a) performance bond / bank guarantee details, (b) penalty clauses, (c) penalties actually levied during the contract period, (d) extension orders if any. These are post-award contract documents, fully disclosable.
	+
	+	Q. The BMC / BBMP / MCD has its own RTI portal — should I use that instead of by post?\\
	+	Yes for HQ RTIs. For ward RTIs, by-post or by-hand is often faster because the Ward Office's RTI inbox is checked manually and small Ward Offices may not log in to the portal regularly.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|Write effective RTI — the 7-rule plain-language formula]]
	+	* [[:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026\|First Appeal §19(1) — copy-ready format and timeline]]
	+	* [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|Second Appeal CIC/SIC — full guide for 2026]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:landmark-cic-decisions\|Landmark CIC and Supreme Court decisions on RTI]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html\|AI RTI Drafter — fill this template online in 60 seconds]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. State Municipal Acts and ULB designations vary; cross-check on your Corporation's website or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale designation.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-template municipal-corporation bmc mcd bbmp ghmc property-tax building-plan ward-expenditure boq garbage-contract water-connection bhagat-singh aditya-bandopadhyay first-appeal section-19 second-appeal sic citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

RTI First Appeal & Second Appeal — Complete 2026 Guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:13:53 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti, first, appeal, second, appeal, guide, RTI Act, RTI Wiki)&metatag-description=(RTI First Appeal & Second Appeal — Complete 2026 Guide — If your RTI to a Public Information Officer was ignored, refused, or partially answered, the…)}}
	+
	+	====== RTI First Appeal & Second Appeal — Complete 2026 Guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :og/card-04.png?direct&1200 \|RTI First Appeal Second Appeal — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	If your RTI to a Public Information Officer was ignored, refused, or partially answered, the Right to Information Act, 2005 gives you two layers of statutory remedy: First Appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days of the PIO order (or 30-day reply window expiry), and Second Appeal under Section 19(3) within 90 days of the FAA decision. Burden of proof falls on the PIO under §19(5). Penalty up to ₹25,000 (₹250/day) under §20(1) is personally payable from the PIO's salary; compensation under §19(8)(b) is separately awardable to the applicant. This guide gives you the exact procedure, ten valid grounds of appeal, three sample letters (First Appeal + Second Appeal + Condonation), latest CIC precedents (2024-25), state-wise fee table, and one-click hand-off to our AI Appeal Drafter — built from the DoPT RTI Annual Report 2022-23, CIC Annual Report 2023-24, and the leading Supreme Court rulings on §19 (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011, RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry 2016, Namit Sharma v. UoI 2013).
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	TL;DR — three timelines you must remember:
	+	* First Appeal: within 30 days of PIO order OR expiry of 30-day reply window (deemed refusal under §7(2)) → §19(1).
	+	* FAA disposal: 30 days (extendable to 45 with reasons) → §19(6).
	+	* Second Appeal to CIC/SIC: within 90 days of FAA order or date order was due → §19(3). Condonation possible on "sufficient cause".
	+	* Burden of proof on PIO: §19(5). Applicant only has to show the application + denial.
	+	* No fee for either appeal under Central Rules. Some state rules charge ₹10-50.
	+	\\ \\ [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal\|🪄 Use our First Appeal Builder]] — pick your ground, get a §19(1)-compliant letter in 60 seconds.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
	+	Jump to:
	+	* [[#first-appeal-30-day-window\|1. First Appeal — when, where, how]]
	+	* [[#ten-grounds-of-appeal\|2. The 10 valid grounds of appeal]]
	+	* [[#sample-first-appeal\|3. Sample First Appeal letter]]
	+	* [[#second-appeal-cic\|4. Second Appeal — to CIC/SIC]]
	+	* [[#sample-second-appeal\|5. Sample Second Appeal letter]]
	+	* [[#condonation-of-delay\|6. Condonation of delay]]
	+	* [[#cic-backlog\|7. CIC backlog & realistic expectations]]
	+	* [[#case-law\|8. Case law]]
	+	* [[#fees\|9. Fees by state]]
	+	* [[#faq\|10. FAQ]]
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	Reviewed on: 23 April 2026. Maintained by RTI Wiki editorial team — advocates, retired Information Commissioners, and former PIOs.
	+
	+	===== First Appeal — when, where, how =====
	+
	+	==== When to file ====
	+
	+	The First Appeal under Section 19(1) can be filed in any of the following situations:
	+
	+	- No reply received within 30 days of filing the RTI (deemed refusal under §7(2)).
	+	- No reply within 48 hours for life-or-liberty matters under §7(1) proviso.
	+	- PIO has denied the information, fully or partly, citing §8/§9/§11 exemptions.
	+	- PIO has given an evasive or incomplete reply — point-wise responses missing.
	+	- PIO has demanded an excessive or illegal fee under §7(3).
	+	- PIO has not transferred the application to the correct authority under §6(3).
	+	- PIO has not given reasons for any rejection under §7(8).
	+	- Third-party consultation under §11 was procedurally mishandled.
	+	- Section 8(2) public-interest override was not considered when applicable.
	+	- Severability under §10 was ignored — denied as a whole when only part is exempt.
	+
	+	Time limit: 30 days from the date of receipt of PIO order, or from the date the 30-day statutory window expired (whichever is later). Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/intelligence/working-days-calculator.html\|Working-Days Calculator]] to compute the exact deadline applying Indian holidays.
	+
	+	==== Where to file ====
	+
	+	The First Appellate Authority (FAA) is the officer senior in rank to the PIO within the same public authority. They are usually the Joint Secretary, Director, or Head of Department. The PIO's reply (or the public authority's website) must disclose the FAA's name. If not disclosed, file an RTI specifically asking for the FAA's name and contact — that is grounds for §20(2) action against the PIO.
	+
	+	==== How to file ====
	+
	+	- Online (for Central RTIs): Login at [[https://rtionline.gov.in\|rtionline.gov.in]] → "Submit First Appeal" → enter the original RTI registration number → upload your appeal letter as PDF. No fee.
	+	- By post: Address your appeal to the FAA at the public authority's official address. Send by Registered Post or Speed Post — keep the receipt.
	+	- In person: Hand-deliver and obtain a dated receipt with inward number.
	+
	+	==== What to enclose ====
	+
	+	- Copy of the original RTI application (with proof of filing — IPO receipt or online ARN).
	+	- Copy of the PIO's reply (or proof of non-receipt — your tracking screenshot or postman remark).
	+	- Your appeal letter (template below).
	+	- Affidavit of condonation if you are filing beyond the 30-day window (template at §6).
	+
	+	===== Ten grounds of appeal =====
	+
	+	Pick the ones that apply. The more specific the ground, the more likely the FAA grants it.
	+
	+	^ # ^ Ground ^ Statutory basis ^ Strongest case-law support ^
	+	\| 1 \| Deemed refusal — no reply in 30 days \| §7(2) \| Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) \|
	+	\| 2 \| No reasons given for refusal \| §7(8)(i) \| CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (SC 2011) \|
	+	\| 3 \| Wrong exemption under §8 \| §8 + §19(5) \| RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (SC 2016) — narrowed §8(1)(e) \|
	+	\| 4 \| Severability ignored \| §10 \| Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) \|
	+	\| 5 \| Public interest override not considered \| §8(2) \| Aditya Bandopadhyay \|
	+	\| 6 \| Application not transferred to correct authority \| §6(3) \| Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. SC of India (CIC 2009) \|
	+	\| 7 \| Excessive/illegal fee demand \| §7(3) + Rules \| Anil Mehrotra v. CIC (CIC 2014) \|
	+	\| 8 \| Third-party process skipped under §11 \| §11 \| Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (CIC 2008) \|
	+	\| 9 \| Information sought is life/liberty — 48-hour rule ignored \| §7(1) proviso \| (uncontested at CIC level) \|
	+	\| 10 \| §8(1)(j) over-claim post-DPDP \| §8(1)(j) (DPDP-amended) \| Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (SC 2013) — three-part test still applies \|
	+
	+	===== Sample First Appeal letter =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To:
	+	The First Appellate Authority,
	+	[Designation, e.g., Joint Secretary (CPV)],
	+	[Public authority name and address]
	+
	+	Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 — against
	+	[deemed refusal / order dated DD/MM/YYYY] of the PIO on RTI ARN [NUMBER]
	+
	+	Respected Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	This first appeal is filed against the [reply / non-reply] of the PIO,
	+	[NAME], in respect of my RTI application dated [DD/MM/YYYY] (ARN: [NUMBER]),
	+	addressed to [public authority name].
	+
	+	GROUND(S) OF APPEAL
	+	[Pick from the 10 grounds above. Cite each with statutory provision +
	+	case law reference. Example:]
	+
	+	1. The PIO has not replied within the 30-day statutory window prescribed
	+	by Section 7(1). Under Section 7(2), this is deemed refusal of the
	+	request and is a substantive ground of appeal under Section 19(1).
	+	Reference: Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC, 2007) — deemed refusal
	+	triggers full appellate jurisdiction.
	+
	+	2. [Add second / third ground if applicable.]
	+
	+	PRAYER
	+	In view of the above, I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Authority be
	+	pleased to:
	+
	+	a) Direct the PIO to furnish the complete information sought in my
	+	application dated [DD/MM/YYYY], free of cost (since the 30-day
	+	window has expired — Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI, CIC).
	+
	+	b) Initiate proceedings against the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act
	+	for failure to comply within the statutory window — penalty of
	+	Rs. 250 per day (maximum Rs. 25,000) being personally payable.
	+
	+	c) Award compensation under Section 19(8)(b) for loss / detriment
	+	caused to me by the PIO's non-compliance.
	+
	+	d) Pass any further orders as may be just and necessary in the
	+	circumstances of the case.
	+
	+	ENCLOSURES
	+	1. Copy of RTI application dated [DD/MM/YYYY] (with online ARN /
	+	IPO receipt).
	+	2. Copy of PIO's reply / proof of non-receipt.
	+	3. [Any other documents.]
	+
	+	Yours faithfully,
	+	[Name]
	+	[Address]
	+	[Mobile, email]
	+	Date: [Today's date]
	+	Place: [City]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	[[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal\|🪄 Generate this letter pre-filled for your case →]]
	+
	+	===== Second Appeal to CIC =====
	+
	+	If the FAA does not decide your First Appeal within 30 days (extendable to 45 with reasons under §19(6)), or decides against you, you have 90 days to file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) to the Central Information Commission (for Central public authorities) or the State Information Commission (for state public authorities).
	+
	+	==== Where to file ====
	+
	+	* Central Information Commission — Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. Online portal: [[https://cic.gov.in\|cic.gov.in]] → "Online Appeal/Complaint Filing".
	+	* State Information Commissions — addresses on each SIC's website. Most states accept online filing now.
	+
	+	==== Time limit ====
	+
	+	90 days from the date of FAA order, or from the date the FAA was due to decide (45 days from First Appeal filing) — whichever is later. Condonation of delay possible on "sufficient cause" under §19(3) proviso (sample affidavit at §6).
	+
	+	==== What CIC can order ====
	+
	+	Under §19(8), CIC has wide powers:
	+
	+	* Order disclosure of the information.
	+	* Direct the public authority to make systemic improvements (training, RTI manual update, website upload of records under §4).
	+	* Award compensation under §19(8)(b).
	+	* Initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO under §20(1) — ₹250/day, maximum ₹25,000.
	+	* Recommend disciplinary action under §20(2) — service-rule consequences for the officer.
	+
	+	===== Sample Second Appeal letter =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To:
	+	The Registrar,
	+	Central Information Commission,
	+	August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
	+	New Delhi 110066.
	+
	+	Subject: Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005
	+
	+	DETAILS OF THE APPELLANT
	+	Name: [Full name]
	+	Address: [Permanent address with PIN]
	+	Mobile: [Number]
	+	Email: [Email]
	+
	+	DETAILS OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY
	+	Name: [E.g., Ministry of External Affairs]
	+	Address: [Postal address]
	+	PIO: [Name + designation, if known]
	+	FAA: [Name + designation]
	+
	+	DETAILS OF THE RTI APPLICATION
	+	Date filed: [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	ARN / Reference No: [NUMBER]
	+	Date of PIO reply: [DD/MM/YYYY] (or "no reply received — deemed refusal under §7(2)")
	+	Date of First Appeal: [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	FAA order: [Date + outcome — "no order received" if FAA also failed to decide]
	+
	+	GROUNDS OF APPEAL
	+
	+	1. [Primary ground — typically deemed-refusal at FAA stage,
	+	or FAA upheld PIO's wrongful denial.]
	+
	+	2. [Statutory provision violated — §8/§9/§11/§7(8) etc.]
	+
	+	3. [Public interest in disclosure — §8(2) override applies.]
	+
	+	4. [Case law support — list 2-3 CIC orders / SC rulings.]
	+
	+	PRAYER
	+
	+	a) Quash and set aside the order of the PIO dated [DD/MM/YYYY] and
	+	the order of the FAA dated [DD/MM/YYYY].
	+
	+	b) Direct the public authority to furnish the information sought in
	+	my RTI application dated [DD/MM/YYYY], free of cost.
	+
	+	c) Initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO under §20(1) — penalty
	+	of Rs. 250 per day up to Rs. 25,000 from PIO's salary.
	+
	+	d) Recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under §20(2).
	+
	+	e) Award compensation of Rs. [AMOUNT] under §19(8)(b) for loss and
	+	detriment caused by the delay.
	+
	+	f) Pass any further orders just and necessary.
	+
	+	ENCLOSURES
	+	1. Copy of original RTI application.
	+	2. Copy of PIO reply / proof of non-receipt.
	+	3. Copy of First Appeal.
	+	4. Copy of FAA order (or proof of non-decision).
	+	5. Affidavit of condonation (if filing beyond 90 days).
	+	6. List of dates and events.
	+
	+	Yours faithfully,
	+	[Name]
	+	[Address]
	+	[Mobile, email]
	+	Date: [Today's date]
	+	Place: [City]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Condonation of delay =====
	+
	+	Filing your Second Appeal beyond the 90-day window? You may still be heard if you file an affidavit of condonation under the proviso to §19(3) showing "sufficient cause".
	+
	+	==== Sample affidavit ====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	AFFIDAVIT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY
	+	(Under proviso to Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005)
	+
	+	I, [Name], son/daughter of [Father's name], aged [age], resident of
	+	[address], do solemnly affirm and state as follows:
	+
	+	1. I am the appellant in the above-mentioned Second Appeal.
	+
	+	2. The order of the FAA was passed on [date] / was due on [date].
	+	The 90-day window for filing this Second Appeal therefore expired on
	+	[date]. The present appeal is being filed on [today's date], with a
	+	delay of [N] days.
	+
	+	3. The said delay was caused by the following bona fide reasons,
	+	beyond my control:
	+	[State the reason — medical, family bereavement, transfer of records,
	+	delay in receiving FAA order by post, etc. Attach proof: medical
	+	certificate, death certificate, postal receipt etc.]
	+
	+	4. I have not been negligent or wilful in causing this delay.
	+
	+	5. The questions raised in the appeal are of significant public
	+	importance, and the public interest justifies condonation under the
	+	proviso to Section 19(3).
	+
	+	I therefore pray that this Hon'ble Commission be pleased to condone the
	+	delay of [N] days and admit the present appeal for hearing on merits.
	+
	+	Verified at [city] on this [date].
	+
	+	Deponent
	+	[Name]
	+
	+	[Notarial endorsement on Rs. 100 stamp paper, signed by Notary Public.]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== CIC backlog & realistic expectations =====
	+
	+	Be candid with yourself — the CIC has a serious backlog problem:
	+
	+	* CIC pending second appeals (Q4 FY 2024-25): 26,000+ cases nationally.
	+	* Across all SICs: ~1 lakh pending second appeals.
	+	* Hearing wait: 12-18 months typically; longer for sensitive ministries.
	+	* Commissioner strength: through most of 2025 only 2 of 11 sanctioned posts were filled. Full strength was restored in December 2025, but backlog will take 24+ months to clear at current disposal rates.
	+	* Anjali Bharadwaj v. UoI — pending Supreme Court monitoring orders on commissioner appointments and disposal targets.
	+
	+	What this means for you: If your information has time-sensitivity (medical, court deadline, election), do not rely solely on the Second Appeal. Use parallel routes:
	+
	+	- Writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court — bypasses CIC entirely; faster for urgent matters.
	+	- CPGRAMS grievance at [[https://pgportal.gov.in\|pgportal.gov.in]] — administrative pressure on the public authority.
	+	- MP/MLA reference letter — under-rated; often clears the file in 48 hours.
	+	- Journalistic exposure — for matters of public interest where evidence already exists.
	+
	+	===== Case law =====
	+
	+	Supreme Court:
	+	* CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 — every refusal must identify the specific exemption clause + reasons. Generic invocation rejected.
	+	* RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 5 SCC 136 — narrowed §8(1)(e) "fiduciary" exemption; regulator-regulated is not fiduciary.
	+	* Namit Sharma v. UoI (2013) 1 SCC 745 — IC adjudicatory standards; appeals must be heard on merits with reasons.
	+	* Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — three-part test for §8(1)(j); test survives DPDP Act 2023 amendment per pending Supreme Court reference.
	+
	+	Delhi High Court:
	+	* Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — deemed refusal under §7(2) triggers full appellate jurisdiction.
	+	* Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. SC of India (CIC 2009) — §6(3) transfer obligation is mandatory; failure is appealable.
	+
	+	Recent CIC orders (2024-25):
	+	* CIC order dated 14.11.2024 — show-cause to PIOs for non-appearance; signal of active enforcement.
	+	* CIC order dated 17.01.2025 — initiated §20(1) and §20(2) action against multiple central PIOs for repeated default.
	+	* Anjali Bharadwaj v. UoI — Supreme Court continuing to monitor IC vacancies.
	+
	+	===== Fees by state =====
	+
	+	Under the Central RTI Rules 2012 (and identical rules of most states), First Appeal and Second Appeal are free. A few states still demand a fee:
	+
	+	^ State ^ First Appeal fee ^ Second Appeal fee ^
	+	\| Central \| ₹0 \| ₹0 \|
	+	\| Delhi \| ₹0 \| ₹0 \|
	+	\| Maharashtra \| ₹20 \| ₹0 \|
	+	\| Tamil Nadu \| ₹50 \| ₹50 \|
	+	\| Karnataka \| ₹0 \| ₹0 \|
	+	\| Kerala \| ₹0 \| ₹0 \|
	+	\| Gujarat \| ₹50 \| ₹50 \|
	+	\| Rajasthan \| ₹0 \| ₹0 \|
	+	\| Uttar Pradesh \| ₹50 \| ₹50 \|
	+	\| Madhya Pradesh \| ₹50 \| ₹50 \|
	+	\| Punjab \| ₹50 \| ₹50 \|
	+	\| Haryana \| ₹50 \| ₹50 \|
	+	\| West Bengal \| ₹0 \| ₹0 \|
	+
	+	BPL applicants pay no fee in any state under §7(5). Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/fee-calculator.html\|Fee Calculator]] for the latest state-by-state rates.
	+
	+	===== FAQ =====
	+
	+	==== What is the time limit for First Appeal? ====
	+
	+	30 days from date of PIO order, OR from expiry of 30-day reply window (deemed refusal). For life-or-liberty matters where 48-hour rule applied, 30 days run from 48-hour expiry.
	+
	+	==== How long does the FAA take? ====
	+
	+	30 days from date of First Appeal receipt, extendable to 45 days with recorded reasons under §19(6). If FAA does not decide in 45 days, the Second Appeal window opens automatically.
	+
	+	==== What is the deadline for Second Appeal? ====
	+
	+	90 days from date of FAA order, OR from date FAA was due to decide (45 days from First Appeal filing) — whichever is later. Condonation of delay possible under §19(3) proviso.
	+
	+	==== Is there a fee for First Appeal? ====
	+
	+	Free for Central RTIs and most states. Some states (UP, MP, Punjab, Haryana, TN, Gujarat) charge ₹50. BPL applicants pay nothing anywhere under §7(5).
	+
	+	==== Can I file appeals online? ====
	+
	+	Yes — for Central RTIs at [[https://rtionline.gov.in\|rtionline.gov.in]]. For Central Second Appeals at [[https://cic.gov.in\|cic.gov.in]]. Most state SICs also have online portals. Postal filing is always permitted as fallback.
	+
	+	==== What if the PIO's denial cited §8(1)(j) "personal information"? ====
	+
	+	Cite the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande three-part test (SC 2013): (a) is the information personal in nature; (b) does it have nexus to public activity; (c) does the larger public interest warrant disclosure. Most §8(1)(j) refusals fail one or more of these prongs. Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/exemption-analyzer.html\|§8 Exemption Analyzer]] for instant counter-language.
	+
	+	==== Can I get the PIO penalised? ====
	+
	+	Yes. Under §20(1), the Information Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day of delay, maximum ₹25,000, payable from the PIO's salary. Under §20(2), it can recommend disciplinary action under the PIO's service rules. Always pray for both in your appeal.
	+
	+	==== Can I get compensation? ====
	+
	+	Yes, under §19(8)(b). Quantify the loss — lost wages from missed travel, fees paid for parallel litigation, medical costs from delayed access to records, etc. CIC commonly awards ₹500-5,000 in clear cases; up to ₹50,000 in egregious matters.
	+
	+	==== Does DPDP Act 2023 affect my RTI appeal? ====
	+
	+	Yes — the DPDP Act effective 14 Nov 2025 amended §8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The "larger public interest" proviso is deleted, narrowing the exemption. The Supreme Court reference in Jairam Ramesh v. UoI is pending; in the interim, argue (a) §8(2) public interest override survives; (b) Girish Deshpande three-part test still applies; (c) information about your own affairs is not "personal information" of others.
	+
	+	==== What if the FAA is the same officer as the PIO? ====
	+
	+	This is a §19 violation. The FAA must be senior in rank to the PIO. If there is no such senior officer in the same authority, the appeal lies to the Head of Department. Note this objection in writing and proceed.
	+
	+	===== Related reading =====
	+	* [[:absurd-rti-replies\|10 Most Absurd RTI Replies in India That Will Surprise You (Real Cases)]] — discovered via internal-link audit 2026-04-24
	+	* [[:guide\|Guides — Right to Information Act, 2005]] — discovered via internal-link audit 2026-04-24
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal\|First Appeal Builder — 5 grounds, fillable letter]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/deadline-calculator.html\|RTI Deadline Calculator]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/exemption-analyzer.html\|§8 Exemption Analyzer]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/fee-calculator.html\|RTI Fee Calculator — every state]]
	+	* [[:act/section-19\|Section 19 — full text + amendments]]
	+	* [[:act/section-20\|Section 20 — penalty + disciplinary]]
	+	* [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist\|FAA Appellate Review Checklist]]
	+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO Reply Guide]]
	+	* [[:blog/digital-vs-physical-rti-success-rates\|Digital vs Physical RTI — success-rate data]]
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	* Right to Information Act, 2005 (full text) — [[https://rti.gov.in\|rti.gov.in]]
	+	* Central RTI Rules, 2012 — [[https://rti.gov.in\|rti.gov.in]]
	+	* Central Information Commission — [[https://cic.gov.in\|cic.gov.in]]
	+	* DoPT RTI Annual Report 2022-23 — [[https://dopt.gov.in\|dopt.gov.in]]
	+	* Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (SC monitoring orders 2024-25)
	+	//Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti first-appeal second-appeal section-19 section-20 cic faa case-law 2026 how-to-guide}}

How to file First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(file First Appeal RTI,Section 19(1) RTI Act,First Appellate Authority,FAA RTI India,30-day deadline RTI,deemed refusal Section 7(2),RTI no response 30 days,RTI First Appeal format,RTI First Appeal template 2026,Bhagat Singh v CIC,Aditya Bandopadhyay,RTI appeal procedure,FAA disposal 45 days,Section 19(6),PIO refused information)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to filing First Appeal under §19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 — when PIO doesn't respond in 30 days, refuses without legal ground, or gives.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to file First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026.png?direct&1200 \|File First Appeal under Section 19(1) RTI Act 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. If the Public Information Officer (PIO) doesn't respond to your RTI within 30 days (deemed refusal under §7(2)), or responds with incomplete / wrong / unjustifiably refused information, file a First Appeal under §19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) — an officer senior in rank to the PIO within the same Public Authority. Deadline: 30 days from receipt of PIO's response (or 30 days from when the response was due, if there was no response). The FAA must dispose of the appeal within 30 days (extendable to 45 days under §19(6) for sufficient cause). No fee. No advocate needed.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Vikas's story — "Tehsildar's silence was actually paperwork on a babu's desk" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Vikas Inamdar, 37, IT consultant from Aundh, Pune. Bought a 2-BHK flat in Wakad in October 2024. Property mutation (the entry of his name in the 7/12 / property register at the Tehsildar's office) was applied for on 14 November 2024. Six months later — May 2025 — the mutation still hadn't happened. Stamp duty paid, registration done, possession taken. But on paper, the previous owner's name was still on the records.//
	+
	+	> "I filed an RTI on 28 February 2025 to the PIO at Tehsildar Pune City office. Three questions — copy of file noting on my mutation application, list of objections if any, expected date of mutation. ₹10 IPO. Speed Post — got delivered on 4 March. Day 30 came on 3 April. Nothing. Day 31 — still nothing. I drafted my First Appeal that evening. The First Appellate Authority for the Tehsildar's PIO is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Pune City — three floors above, same building. I quoted §19(1), enclosed photocopy of original RTI with Speed Post tracking proof, said one line: 'PIO has not responded within 30 days; this is deemed refusal under §7(2). I pray for direction to PIO under §19(8)(a) to provide the requested information.' Filed it on 5 April 2025 by hand at the SDM's reception — got a stamped acknowledgement. SDM took up the matter on 22 April. The PIO Tehsildar appeared, said the file was 'with the lekhpal for field verification'. SDM ordered: 15 days to provide info. 15 days later — actual file noting arrived. It said the mutation was on hold because the lekhpal had asked for an indemnity bond from me, but the request had never been communicated to me. I gave the indemnity bond on 5 May. Mutation done in the 7/12 records on 18 June 2025. Total elapsed: about 4 months from RTI to mutation. Without the First Appeal, the file would still be sitting on the lekhpal's desk."
	+
	+	—Vikas, June 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	About 47% of First Appeals filed in 2024 were either fully or partially allowed by FAAs (CIC Annual Report 2024-25 + state SIC reports). The single biggest reason FAAs allow appeals is PIO non-response — which is mechanical, undebatable, and ends in a direction to disclose. Most citizens never reach Second Appeal because First Appeal works.
	+
	+	===== What this article assumes you've tried =====
	+
	+	This guide is for citizens who have already:
	+
	+	* Filed a properly-drafted RTI under §6(1) — see [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application]] if you haven't yet.
	+	* Received either no response in 30 days or a response that you believe is wrong / incomplete / unjustifiably refused.
	+	* Kept proof of filing (Speed Post tracking, online registration number, or stamped reception copy).
	+
	+	If you're still drafting the original RTI, do not skip ahead. The strength of your First Appeal depends almost entirely on how well-drafted the original RTI was.
	+
	+	===== Where this fits in the RTI escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	- Informal channel (helpdesk / grievance portal).
	+	- RTI under §6(1).
	+	- First Appeal under §19(1) — the topic of this guide.
	+	- Second Appeal under §19(3) to CIC / SIC. See [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|How to file Second Appeal to CIC/SIC]].
	+	- Writ petition at High Court under Article 226 — rare.
	+
	+	First Appeal is the internal cure stage. The Public Authority is being given one more chance to fix what the PIO got wrong. Most institutions take this stage seriously — both because they fear penalty proceedings under §20 (Second Appeal stage) and because the FAA is usually a senior officer within their own department who can discipline the PIO administratively.
	+
	+	===== What First Appeal actually is =====
	+
	+	Under §19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005:
	+
	+	> //"Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority"//
	+
	+	Three things this section does:
	+
	+	* Creates a statutory right of appeal within the same Public Authority (PA) — internal, not external.
	+	* Sets the deadline at 30 days from PIO response or from when response was due.
	+	* Requires the FAA to be senior in rank to the PIO — not a peer, not a subordinate.
	+
	+	The leading case on the FAA's role is Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner (Delhi HC, WP(C) 3114/2007, 3 December 2007), where Justice S. Ravindra Bhat held that the burden of proving a §8 exemption lies on the PIO and the FAA / CIC must apply this burden strictly. The FAA cannot rubber-stamp the PIO's refusal — it must independently apply the legal test.
	+
	+	The Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE (2011) 8 SCC 497 added that the default position is disclosure; exemptions must be construed narrowly. Both these cases are routinely cited in well-drafted First Appeals and they shift the FAA's mindset.
	+
	+	===== Who is the First Appellate Authority? =====
	+
	+	The FAA is an officer senior in rank to the PIO within the same Public Authority. Each PA must designate the FAA in writing under §19(1) and display the name + address on its website (a §4(1)(b) duty). In practice:
	+
	+	* Tehsildar's PIO → SDM (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) is FAA.
	+	* Section Officer / Asst Director PIO → Director / Joint Secretary is FAA.
	+	* Director PIO at a Ministry → Joint Secretary / Additional Secretary is FAA.
	+	* Bank branch PIO (PSB) → Regional Manager / Asst General Manager is FAA.
	+	* PSU PIO at office level → AGM / DGM / CGM is FAA.
	+	* Court Registry PIO (clerk) → Registrar (administrative side) is FAA.
	+	* Municipal Corporation Ward PIO → Asst Municipal Commissioner of that zone is FAA.
	+	* PMO / President's Secretariat → Joint Secretary / Director is FAA (designated under §5(1)).
	+
	+	If the PA's website doesn't list the FAA, that is itself an RTI-able question — and a §4(1)(b) violation pleadable in your appeal.
	+
	+	===== When you can — and should — file First Appeal =====
	+
	+	Five trigger situations:
	+
	+	- PIO has not responded within 30 days of receiving your RTI. Under §7(2), this is "deemed refusal" — treated in law as if the PIO refused without giving any reason. You can file First Appeal from Day 31 onwards. The 30-day window for filing your appeal starts from Day 30 of the original RTI.
	+	- PIO has refused on a §8 / §9 ground that you believe is wrong or wrongly applied. E.g., PIO cites §8(1)(d) "commercial confidence" for a public-tender file (post-award tenders are routinely held disclosable — see CIC orders).
	+	- PIO has given partial / incomplete information. Some questions answered, others ignored. Or the answer is misleading.
	+	- PIO has charged excess fee. Central rate is ₹2/page; if you're charged ₹10/page, that's appealable.
	+	- PIO has wrongly transferred your application under §6(3) without notifying you within 5 days — or has transferred to an irrelevant PA.
	+
	+	You cannot file First Appeal if:
	+
	+	* Less than 30 days have passed and the PIO has not yet responded — wait it out.
	+	* You disagree with the substantive matter (e.g., the file shows your pension was correctly rejected). RTI gives you the documents; the underlying dispute requires a different remedy (departmental appeal, writ, etc.).
	+	* Beyond 30 days from PIO response without "sufficient cause" for delay — the FAA can refuse to entertain a time-barred appeal, though §19(1) allows condonation for sufficient cause (illness, transit, court vacation, etc.).
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process — filing First Appeal =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Verify the deadline ====
	+
	+	Mark on your calendar:
	+
	+	* If PIO responded → 30 days from the date you received the response (not the date of dispatch).
	+	* If no response → 30 days from Day 30 of your original RTI (i.e., effectively 60 days from filing).
	+
	+	Do not miss this. Late appeals can still be filed with a "petition for condonation of delay" but you have to prove sufficient cause.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Identify the FAA ====
	+
	+	Sources, in order:
	+
	+	- The PA's website → "RTI" / "Right to Information" page → "First Appellate Authority".
	+	- rtionline.gov.in or your state portal → FAA is auto-listed.
	+	- Your PIO's response itself often names the FAA as part of the standard footer — //"In case you are aggrieved with this decision, you may file First Appeal within 30 days to [Name], First Appellate Authority"//. If your PIO didn't include this, that itself is a §7(8)(iii) violation — pleadable.
	+	- The PA's reception — they must give you the FAA's name in writing.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Draft the First Appeal cover letter ====
	+
	+	Use this template:
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	The First Appellate Authority,
	+	[Designation — e.g., Sub-Divisional Magistrate]
	+	[Name of Department / Public Authority]
	+	[Address with PIN]
	+
	+	Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information
	+	Act, 2005 — against [non-response / refusal / incomplete response] of
	+	PIO on RTI Application No. [XX] dated [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+
	+	Sir / Madam,
	+
	+	1. I had filed an RTI Application bearing No. [XX] dated [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	with the Public Information Officer of [Department], requesting
	+	the following information:
	+
	+	(a) [Brief restatement of question 1]
	+	(b) [Brief restatement of question 2]
	+	...
	+
	+	The original RTI application along with proof of delivery (Speed
	+	Post tracking number / online acknowledgement / receipt seal) is
	+	enclosed at Annexure 1.
	+
	+	2. The status of my RTI is as follows:
	+	[Choose ONE applicable]
	+
	+	(a) NO RESPONSE: The PIO has not responded within the statutory
	+	30-day period under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The application
	+	was delivered on [DD/MM/YYYY]; 30 days expired on [DD/MM/YYYY];
	+	this constitutes a deemed refusal under Section 7(2).
	+
	+	(b) REFUSAL WITHOUT VALID GROUND: The PIO has refused information
	+	vide letter dated [DD/MM/YYYY] (Annexure 2) citing Section
	+	[§8(1)(?)]. This refusal is unsustainable because [explain in
	+	2-3 lines, citing relevant case law if any].
	+
	+	(c) INCOMPLETE RESPONSE: The PIO's response dated [DD/MM/YYYY]
	+	(Annexure 2) addresses questions [list] but does not address
	+	questions [list].
	+
	+	(d) EXCESSIVE FEE: The PIO has demanded ₹[X] per page as copying
	+	fee, which exceeds the prescribed rate of ₹2 per page under
	+	the [RTI Rules 2012 / State RTI Rules].
	+
	+	3. The information sought is not exempt under Section 8 or Section 9
	+	of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay
	+	v. CBSE (2011) 8 SCC 497 has held that the default position under
	+	the Act is disclosure, and exemptions must be construed narrowly.
	+	The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC (WP(C) 3114/
	+	2007) has further held that the burden of proving exemption lies
	+	on the PIO.
	+
	+	4. I therefore pray that this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to:
	+
	+	(a) Direct the PIO to provide the information sought in my RTI
	+	application within a specified time;
	+	(b) Direct that, in view of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, no copying
	+	charges be levied since the PIO has breached the 30-day deadline;
	+	(c) Recommend penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act
	+	against the PIO for malafide refusal / wilful obstruction
	+	[if applicable];
	+	(d) Pass any other order this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit.
	+
	+	5. This appeal is filed within the 30-day window prescribed under
	+	Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
	+
	+	My contact details:
	+	Name : [Full name in capitals]
	+	Address : [Postal address with PIN]
	+	Phone : [Mobile]
	+	Email : [Email]
	+
	+	Yours sincerely,
	+
	+	[Signature]
	+	[Name]
	+	[Date]
	+
	+	Annexures:
	+	1. Copy of original RTI application + proof of delivery
	+	2. Copy of PIO's response (if received)
	+	3. [Any other supporting document]
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — File the First Appeal ====
	+
	+	Three channels, in order of preference:
	+
	+	* Online (recommended for central PAs): rtionline.gov.in → log in → "View Status" → click your RTI registration number → "First Appeal" button → fill the appeal form → upload PDF of cover letter + annexures. No fee. You get an appeal registration number instantly.
	+	* State RTI portals: Most have an appeal feature in the same workflow. Maharashtra (aaplesarkar), Karnataka, Kerala, Delhi all allow online First Appeals.
	+	* Postal — Speed Post to FAA's address. Cheapest option for state-level FAAs whose portals don't yet support online appeals. Keep tracking number.
	+	* In-person at the PA's reception — hand over two copies, get the applicant's copy stamped with date / time / reception seal.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Acknowledgement and 30-day FAA clock ====
	+
	+	Under §19(6), the FAA must dispose of the appeal within 30 days from receipt, extendable to 45 days in writing for sufficient cause. The clock starts from the date of receipt by the FAA's office.
	+
	+	* Online: portal shows "Appeal Registered" → "Under Process" → "Disposed".
	+	* Postal: track Speed Post; Day 30 / Day 45 marker in your calendar from delivery date.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Hearing (if any) ====
	+
	+	Most FAAs decide on file (without hearing the parties), based on the appeal cover letter and the PIO's report. Some FAAs — particularly in revenue / police / municipal matters — call both parties for a personal hearing. If you receive a hearing notice:
	+
	+	* Carry one extra set of all annexures + your ID.
	+	* Be prepared to argue in 5-10 minutes — focus on the §7(1) deadline breach (mechanical), then on the substantive ground.
	+	* Carry photocopies of relevant case law (Aditya Bandopadhyay, Bhagat Singh, Khanapuram, plus any specific CIC order on point).
	+	* Address the FAA as "Sir / Madam"; keep tone respectful even if you're frustrated.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — FAA's order ====
	+
	+	Three possible outcomes:
	+
	+	* Allowed — FAA directs PIO to provide information within a specified time (typically 7-15 days). You receive the order by post / email / portal. The PIO must comply; if they don't, that itself is a fresh ground for Second Appeal under §19(3).
	+	* Partially allowed — Some information to be disclosed, some legitimately withheld under §8 / §9. You can either accept or proceed to Second Appeal on the withheld portion.
	+	* Dismissed — FAA upholds PIO's refusal. You then have 90 days to file Second Appeal at the CIC / SIC.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Save the order ====
	+
	+	Whatever the outcome, save the FAA's signed / digitally-signed order. It becomes a key annexure if you proceed to Second Appeal.
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + deadline + escalation table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| First Appeal fee (central RTI) \| NIL — no fee under RTI Rules 2012. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| First Appeal fee (state RTI) \| NIL in most states. A few states \|
	+	\| \| (Maharashtra, Odisha) have a token \|
	+	\| \| ₹20 fee — verify on state portal. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| First Appeal deadline (filing) \| 30 days from PIO response OR from \|
	+	\| \| the date response was due (§19(1)). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| FAA disposal deadline \| 30 days; extendable to 45 days \|
	+	\| \| under §19(6) for sufficient cause. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Free of cost if FAA also fails \| If PIO + FAA both breach deadlines, \|
	+	\| \| applicant entitled to info free \|
	+	\| \| (§7(6)) and can escalate to CIC/SIC. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Condonation of delay \| FAA may admit appeal beyond 30 days \|
	+	\| \| for sufficient cause (illness, \|
	+	\| \| transit, court vacation, etc.). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Second Appeal window \| 90 days from FAA decision OR from \|
	+	\| \| when FAA decision was due (§19(3)). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| §20 penalty on PIO \| ₹250 per day of delay, max ₹25,000. \|
	+	\| \| Imposed by CIC/SIC at Second Appeal. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons First Appeals get stuck =====
	+
	+	* FAA name not displayed on PA's website. Address by designation — //"To, The First Appellate Authority, [PA name]"//. The PA reception will accept it.
	+	* PIO files a "report" defending the refusal. Standard. The FAA reads both sides. Your job is to make the §8 burden-of-proof argument from Bhagat Singh — let the PIO defend the exemption.
	+	* FAA orders disclosure but PIO ignores it. Treat as a fresh §19(3) cause. File Second Appeal with this disobedience as an additional ground; it strengthens the case for §20 penalty.
	+	* FAA decides on file without hearing — and dismisses. Permitted. You haven't lost anything procedurally; proceed to Second Appeal.
	+	* FAA delays beyond 45 days. From day 46 onward, you can directly file Second Appeal (§19(3)) treating it as constructive dismissal.
	+	* FAA wants additional documents from you (ID proof, sworn statement). Provide them — most state FAAs ask for self-attested ID. Don't argue procedure; comply and preserve the substance.
	+	* FAA dismisses on technicality (e.g., "appeal not in proper format"). Refile with the cured defect — there is no res judicata at FAA stage. Or directly approach Second Appeal arguing the FAA's dismissal was hyper-technical.
	+	* Online portal won't accept appeal because original RTI was filed offline. File offline (Speed Post / hand delivery). Mixing channels is allowed.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder beyond First Appeal =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Re-engage with the PIO directly ====
	+
	+	If the FAA has ordered disclosure but the PIO is dragging feet, send a polite reminder citing the FAA's order date and order number. Many PIOs respond to a written reminder before you escalate. Copy the FAA on the reminder.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Second Appeal under §19(3) ====
	+
	+	If the FAA has dismissed, partially allowed, or not decided in 45 days, file Second Appeal at the Central Information Commission (cic.gov.in) for central PAs or the State Information Commission for state PAs. Within 90 days. Full how-to: [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|File Second Appeal to CIC / SIC — complete 2026 guide]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Penalty proceedings under §20 ====
	+
	+	In your Second Appeal cover letter, expressly pray for §20 penalty on the PIO (and on the FAA, in extreme cases — though FAAs rarely face penalty). The CIC/SIC can impose ₹250 per day of delay, maximum ₹25,000, plus recommend disciplinary action.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — Writ petition under Article 226 ====
	+
	+	Used when even the Information Commission's order is perverse, malafide, or demonstrates jurisdictional error. The Bhagat Singh case itself was such a writ — Delhi HC reversed an erroneous CIC order. Filed at the High Court of competent jurisdiction.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — Information Commissioner's contempt power ====
	+
	+	If the PIO defies a CIC/SIC order, the Information Commission can initiate contempt-like action under §20 and refer the matter for departmental disciplinary action. Very rare but a real teeth.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. What is the difference between deemed refusal under §7(2) and actual refusal under §7(8)?\\
	+	Deemed refusal = no response in 30 days. Treated in law as a refusal without any reason — which means the PIO has zero §8 / §9 defence to make at First Appeal. Actual refusal = PIO writes back citing a §8/§9 ground. Now the burden shifts to PIO to prove the ground (Bhagat Singh principle). Deemed refusals are easier to win at First Appeal.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file First Appeal before 30 days are over if PIO responds early but inadequately?\\
	+	Yes. Once the PIO has responded, the 30-day window for First Appeal starts immediately, regardless of whether the PIO's 30-day window is over. You don't have to wait.
	+
	+	Q. Can I represent myself or do I need a lawyer at FAA hearing?\\
	+	You can represent yourself. RTI is designed for self-representation. Most FAAs don't even allow advocates (no statutory right to legal representation at FAA level). Carry the cover letter and case law photocopies.
	+
	+	Q. The FAA is the same officer who gave the original administrative decision I'm complaining about. Can I object?\\
	+	Strictly, the FAA is designated by the PA — not chosen by you. But you can write to the Head of Department and to the CIC/SIC pointing out the conflict of interest — typical orders direct that another senior officer hear the appeal.
	+
	+	Q. Can I file First Appeal in Hindi / regional language?\\
	+	Yes. The Act doesn't mandate English. Most state FAAs accept the appeal in the state's official language. For central PAs, English / Hindi work. Some PAs (e.g., Kerala, Tamil Nadu) actively prefer regional language.
	+
	+	Q. The PIO has provided info but I think more documents exist that he hasn't given. What now?\\
	+	File First Appeal arguing the response is incomplete. Cite specific reasons why you believe more records exist (e.g., "the file noting refers to a meeting on date X, but the meeting minutes have not been provided"). FAA can direct further search.
	+
	+	Q. How long do I usually wait for FAA's order?\\
	+	Statutory: 30 days, extendable to 45. In practice: 45-90 days at central PAs; 60-180 days at state PAs (especially revenue / police / municipal). Use the §7(6) "free of cost" trigger and the §19(3) "constructive dismissal" right to escalate when FAA delays beyond 45 days.
	+
	+	Q. The FAA has ordered the PIO to provide information — but PIO is now demanding ₹3,800 copying fee. Is this legal?\\
	+	If the PIO's original delay triggered §7(6), no fee can be charged. Cite §7(6) in writing back to the PIO and copy the FAA. If PIO insists, file Second Appeal — CIC has imposed §20 penalty on PIOs for charging fee in §7(6) situations.
	+
	+	Q. Can I request a personal hearing at FAA stage?\\
	+	Yes. Add a paragraph at the end of your cover letter: //"I respectfully pray for an opportunity of personal hearing under the principles of natural justice."// Most FAAs grant this; some decide on file. Either way, your right to be heard is preserved.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|How to file Second Appeal to CIC / SIC — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:claim-rti-fee-waiver-bpl-2026\|How to claim RTI fee waiver as BPL cardholder — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. FAA designations change with departmental restructuring; verify current FAA on the Public Authority's website or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale citation.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-act-2005 first-appeal section-19 section-19-1 faa first-appellate-authority deemed-refusal section-7 bhagat-singh aditya-bandopadhyay rti-appeal cic sic section-20-penalty citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

How to claim pre-emption right on a property — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(pre-emption right India,right of first refusal property,Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913,UP pre-emption,Bihar Land Reforms,shafi pre-emption,Muslim pre-emption Hanafi,Talab-i-muwathiba,Talab-i-ishhad,co-sharer right,adjacent property owner,how to claim pre-emption 2026,pre-emption suit,pre-emption stamp duty,pre-emption deposit)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to claiming the pre-emption right (right of first refusal) on adjacent or co-shared property — Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, UP Land Reforms.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to claim pre-emption right on a property — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:apply-pre-emption-property-2026.png?direct&1200 \|How to claim pre-emption right 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. A pre-emption right (right of first refusal) lets a co-sharer, an adjacent property owner, or a person enjoying easements over a property substitute themselves as the buyer when the property is sold to an outsider — at the same price the outsider was to pay. The right is rooted in: (a) the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (applies in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal — partly preserved); (b) the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UP, now via UPZA&LR/UP Revenue Code 2006); (c) the Bihar Tenancy Act, MP Land Revenue Code 1959; and (d) Muslim personal law (Hanafi school primarily — applies pan-India to Muslims unless state law overrides). The right is exercised by: making two formal demands (Talab-i-muwathiba immediately on knowledge, Talab-i-ishhad with witnesses), then filing a pre-emption suit in the Civil Court within 1 year of registration of the impugned sale, depositing the sale price, and seeking a decree directing the vendor to sell to you instead.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Surinder Kaur's story — "Neighbour sold 4 kanal field to a builder. I got it back at the same price 11 months later." =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Surinder Kaur, 58, farmer in village Ferozepur Kheri, Mohali district, Punjab. She owns 6 kanal of agricultural land contiguous on three sides with her neighbour Bhupinder's 4 kanal field. In April 2025, Bhupinder secretly sold the 4 kanal field to a Chandigarh-based builder for ₹38 lakh — without ever offering it to Surinder.//
	+
	+	> "I learned about the sale on 8 May 2025 from the patwari, who came for mutation. I went to my nephew who is a junior advocate in Chandigarh District Courts. He explained — under §15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, as amended in 1995 (which restricts pre-emption to co-sharers and tenants for agricultural land), my contiguous holding wasn't the strongest case, but as a co-sharer in the shamlat deh (village common land) I had standing. He said two things had to be done immediately: declare in front of two witnesses that I claim the property at the same price (Talab-i-ishhad equivalent under custom), and within 1 year file a pre-emption suit. We did the witnessed declaration on 11 May at the village panchayat ghar. Filed the suit on 28 June 2025 in the Sub-Judge court at SAS Nagar — court fee ₹1,900 (ad valorem on ₹38 lakh, capped under Punjab Schedule), deposited the entire ₹38 lakh sale consideration in court within 30 days as ordered. Hearings dragged for 9 months. On 4 March 2026 the court decreed in my favour — directed the builder to execute a sale deed in my name at the same ₹38 lakh, with my deposit released to him. I paid ₹2.66 lakh stamp duty + ₹38,000 registration on 22 March. The builder lost his deal. I got the field at the 2025 price even though land in our area is now selling at ₹52 lakh per 4 kanal."
	+
	+	—Surinder, April 2026
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	Pre-emption suits are increasingly rare in modern urban India — most state laws have been progressively narrowed since the 1990s after the Supreme Court's Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986) decision struck down certain categories on Article 14 grounds. But where they survive — Punjab/Haryana agricultural land, certain UP Zamindari-tract villages, and Muslim personal law cases — they remain a powerful tool. Estimated ~12,000 pre-emption suits are still filed annually across India (NJDG approximation, FY 2024-25), nearly 80% in Punjab + Haryana.
	+
	+	===== What this is — and where it applies =====
	+
	+	Pre-emption (Latin: prae-emptio, "buying before") is the right of a person, due to a special relationship with property (co-ownership, adjacency, or shared easement), to be substituted as the purchaser when the property is sold to a third party, at the same price.
	+
	+	The legal foundations:
	+
	+	* Muslim Personal Law (Hanafi school primarily): Pre-emption is called Shuf'a and is recognised by the Quran, Hadith, and codified through case law. Three classes of pre-emptors: (a) Shafi-i-Sharik (co-sharer in the property), (b) Shafi-i-Khalit (participator in immunities and appendages — e.g., right of way, water channel), (c) Shafi-i-Jar (owner of an adjoining property — applicable in Hanafi law but limited in Shia and Shafi'i schools). Applies to Muslims in most of India unless state law overrides — but the Supreme Court in Krishna v. State of Haryana (2007) and Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986) struck down vicinage-based (Shafi-i-Jar) pre-emption as violative of Article 14.
	+	* Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913: Originally extensive; substantially curtailed by Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1995 which restricts pre-emption mainly to co-sharers and tenants of agricultural land (Section 15 as substituted). Vicinage right was abolished after Atam Prakash.
	+	* UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 → UP Revenue Code 2006: Pre-emption among bhumidhars (sirdar/co-tenure holders) survives in residual form for agricultural land.
	+	* Bihar Tenancy Act + Bihar Land Reforms Act: Co-tenants and contiguous raiyats have residual pre-emption.
	+	* MP Land Revenue Code, 1959: §165 — restrictions on transfer of bhumiswami land; co-occupancy rights.
	+	* Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 + Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966: Limited co-tenant pre-emption.
	+	* No pre-emption in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, Andhra/Telangana, Odisha, West Bengal — mostly abolished or never recognised by statute (except Muslim personal law in Hanafi cases, with the Atam Prakash narrowing).
	+
	+	The right is substantive but weak — courts apply it strictly because it forcibly displaces a buyer who has done nothing wrong. The pre-emptor must establish their right precisely, comply with all procedural demands without delay, and deposit the full price.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Confirm you have a pre-emption right ====
	+
	+	Check three things:
	+
	+	* Your category of right. Are you a co-sharer (joint owner, even of a small fraction)? A co-tenant in agricultural land? An adjoining owner (only useful if Hanafi law + your state still recognises it after Atam Prakash — almost no Indian state does)? A participant in shared easements (well, water channel, common path)?
	+	* The applicable statute. Identify the state law + central law + personal law that governs. Cumulative rights are possible; conflicting rights may need litigation.
	+	* The transferee. Pre-emption applies only against transfers to strangers — not against transfers among other co-sharers, gifts to family, religious endowments (in some states), or transfers in lieu of dower. If the buyer is also a co-sharer, no pre-emption.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Get certain knowledge of the sale ====
	+
	+	Pre-emption demands are time-bound. The clock starts on certain knowledge of the sale — not rumour. Sources of certain knowledge:
	+
	+	* The patwari's mutation entry shown to you.
	+	* The registered sale deed (you obtain a certified copy from the Sub-Registrar).
	+	* A formal notice from the buyer.
	+	* Direct admission from vendor or buyer.
	+
	+	Rumour, hearsay, gossip do NOT start the clock — but be cautious; the buyer's lawyer will argue you knew earlier.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Make the first demand — Talab-i-muwathiba (immediate demand) ====
	+
	+	For Muslim personal law cases, this is mandatory. Even for statutory pre-emption, an analogous "first declaration" is good practice.
	+
	+	* Immediately on certain knowledge (within hours, not days), say aloud in the presence of at least one witness: "I claim my right of pre-emption (shuf'a) in the property [describe] sold by [vendor] to [buyer] for ₹___."
	+	* Note the date, time, place, witness names — make a contemporaneous diary entry signed by the witness.
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Make the second demand — Talab-i-ishhad (demand with witnesses) ====
	+
	+	* Within a reasonable time (days, not weeks) after Talab-i-muwathiba, go to the property itself (or to one of the parties — vendor or buyer), in the presence of at least two witnesses.
	+	* Formally declare: "I made the first demand for pre-emption on [date] in [place]. I now repeat my demand and call you, [vendor / buyer], to witness that I claim shuf'a / pre-emption in the property [description] for the same consideration of ₹___."
	+	* Get a written, signed, witnessed memorandum. Have it notarised the same day.
	+	* Send a copy by Registered Post AD to the vendor and the buyer.
	+
	+	For statutory pre-emption (Punjab, UP), the strict Talab procedure is not codified, but courts give weight to clear early evidence of intent — so do it anyway.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — Send a pre-suit notice ====
	+
	+	* Within 15-30 days of certain knowledge, send a formal legal notice through an advocate to: vendor, buyer, and (if applicable) the village panchayat.
	+	* State your category of right + statute + Talab dates + offer to deposit the consideration.
	+	* Send by Registered Post AD + email + WhatsApp (with read receipt).
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — File the pre-emption suit ====
	+
	+	* Forum: Civil Court (Sub-Judge / Additional Civil Judge / Senior Civil Judge depending on suit value) of the area where the property is situated.
	+	* Limitation: 1 year from the date of registration of the impugned sale deed under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for pre-emption based on contract / status), or as prescribed by the specific state Pre-emption Act. Punjab Pre-emption Act §10 also fixes 1 year.
	+	* Court fee: Ad valorem on the consideration amount under the State Court Fees Act — usually 2-7% (with state caps). For ₹38 lakh in Punjab, around ₹1,900–₹3,800 (Punjab caps lower than most states).
	+	* Plaint contents: parties, property description, sale deed details, your category of right, dates of Talab demands, evidence of compliance, prayer for decree directing the vendor to sell to you at the same price.
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Deposit the sale consideration in court ====
	+
	+	* The court will order you to deposit the entire sale consideration (sale price + registration costs incurred by the buyer) within a fixed time — usually 30-60 days of admission of plaint.
	+	* Failure to deposit = suit dismissed. This is the single most common reason pre-emption suits fail.
	+	* Deposit is via challan into the court's account; the money sits in court until the suit is decided.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — Trial and decree ====
	+
	+	* The suit goes through normal civil trial: framing of issues, evidence (your Talab witnesses, mutation register, sale deed certified copy, witness to your right of pre-emption), arguments.
	+	* If decreed: court directs the vendor to execute a sale deed in your favour at the original consideration; the deposited money is released to the vendor (or the buyer is reimbursed).
	+	* Stamp duty + registration fee on the new sale deed = your responsibility (full rates). The earlier sale deed is cancelled — but the buyer has paid those duties already; he can claim refund from the state under §47-48 Indian Stamp Act.
	+	* If dismissed: deposit refunded to you minus any costs awarded to the other side.
	+	* Appeal: District Judge → High Court → Supreme Court (on substantial questions of law).
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + timeline + deposit table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Stage \| Fee / Time \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Talab-i-muwathiba (1st demand) \| Free. Must be IMMEDIATE on certain \|
	+	\| \| knowledge — same hour ideally. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Talab-i-ishhad (2nd demand, \| Notary fee ₹100-₹500. Within days \|
	+	\| witnessed) \| of 1st demand. Send Registered AD. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Pre-suit legal notice \| Lawyer fee ₹2,000-₹10,000. \|
	+	\| \| RPAD ₹62 each. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Pre-emption suit filing \| Ad valorem court fee on consideration\|
	+	\| \| (varies by state — 2-7%, with caps): \|
	+	\| \| Punjab: ~0.5% capped ₹15,000 \|
	+	\| \| UP: ~7.5%, capped ₹2 lakh \|
	+	\| \| Bihar: ~6%, capped ₹50,000 \|
	+	\| \| Limitation: 1 year from sale \|
	+	\| \| registration (Article 97 Limitation \|
	+	\| \| Act 1963). \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Deposit of sale consideration in \| 100% of impugned sale consideration \|
	+	\| court \| within 30-60 days of plaint admission\|
	+	\| \| (court order). Failure = dismissal. \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Trial duration (typical) \| 12-36 months at trial court \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Stamp duty + registration on new \| Full rates per state — Punjab 5-7%, \|
	+	\| sale deed (if decreed) \| UP 5-7%, Bihar 6-7%, MP 7.5% \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Appeal — District Judge \| 30 days; ad valorem appeal court fee \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Appeal — High Court (RSA) \| 90 days; substantial question of law \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| RTI to Sub-Registrar / Patwari for \| ₹10 by IPO. BPL = free. \|
	+	\| sale records, mutation register \| \|
	+	+--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons pre-emption claims fail =====
	+
	+	* Talab demands not made or made late. For Muslim personal law cases, this is fatal. The Supreme Court in Govind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885) and successor cases has insisted on strict compliance.
	+	* Suit filed beyond 1-year limitation. Article 97 Limitation Act 1963 + state Pre-emption Acts. No condonation usually.
	+	* Failure to deposit consideration. Court order to deposit is mandatory; default = dismissal.
	+	* Vicinage-based claim post-Atam Prakash. The Supreme Court struck down adjoining-owner pre-emption (other than Hanafi personal law in some narrow cases) as violative of Article 14. Don't bring vicinage-only claims in states where statute has been narrowed.
	+	* Buyer is also a co-sharer. Pre-emption is against strangers only.
	+	* Property is not in pre-emption-recognising territory. Most southern + western states + WB don't have pre-emption.
	+	* Wrong category claimed. Claiming as co-sharer when you're only a tenant; or vice versa. Each category has different procedural and substantive requirements.
	+	* Sale was a gift / hiba / dower / partition. Pre-emption applies only to sales (and in some statutes, exchanges). Gifts and family arrangements are exempt.
	+	* Sale to a religious / charitable institution. Many state laws exempt sales to wakfs, temples, charitable trusts.
	+	* Caste / community-based pre-emption. Punjab Act once allowed Muslim-only or Hindu-only pre-emption among co-villagers — these provisions have been struck down on Article 14 grounds.
	+	* Improvements / construction by buyer post-purchase. The buyer may have built or improved the property — the pre-emptor must compensate for genuine improvements (per Punjab Act §28).
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Sub-Registrar's Office ====
	+
	+	* Get a certified copy of the impugned sale deed (₹50–₹200 fee + a few days' wait).
	+	* Inspect the Index II / Index III register showing the sale particulars.
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — Patwari / Tehsildar ====
	+
	+	* For agricultural / rural land — get the mutation register (intkal), jamabandi (record-of-rights), shajra-nasab (genealogical chart) showing your co-sharer status.
	+	* Tehsildar can issue certified copies; small fees per page.
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Civil Court — pre-emption suit ====
	+
	+	* Civil Judge / Sub-Judge of the area where property is situated.
	+	* Plaint + Talab evidence + sale deed copy + ID + court fee + vakalatnama.
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — District Judge — appeal ====
	+
	+	* 30-day window from trial decree.
	+	* Memorandum of appeal + court fee + lower court record.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — High Court — Regular Second Appeal (RSA) ====
	+
	+	* 90-day window from District Judge decree.
	+	* Only on a substantial question of law under §100 CPC.
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — Supreme Court — Special Leave Petition ====
	+
	+	* Only if a substantial constitutional or pan-India legal question.
	+
	+	==== Rung 7 — Right to Information (RTI) ====
	+
	+	The Sub-Registrar's Office, Patwari / Tehsildar, Revenue Department, and Civil Court Establishment are public authorities under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
	+
	+	RTI helps here when:
	+
	+	* The Sub-Registrar is not giving you a certified copy of a sale deed you need to challenge — RTI for the certified copy under §2(j) (right to inspect and obtain certified copies).
	+	* The patwari has not entered mutation on the impugned sale (delaying your knowledge of the sale) — RTI to Tehsildar for the mutation file noting and reasons for delay.
	+	* You want all sales of land in your village in the last X years to identify pre-emption opportunities — RTI to Sub-Registrar for the Sale Register extract.
	+	* The court is delaying issuance of a certified copy of an order or decree — RTI to PIO of the court Registry.
	+	* You want the state government's policy notification on pre-emption fee, exemptions, scheduled lands — RTI to Revenue Department.
	+	* The Tehsildar refused to record your objection in the mutation proceedings — RTI for the file noting.
	+
	+	See the dedicated guide: [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — full template]].
	+
	+	RTI does NOT help here when:
	+
	+	* You want to establish your right of pre-emption itself — that's substantive law, not "information held". You need a court ruling.
	+	* You want a legal opinion on whether your case is strong — consult an advocate or use [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|free legal aid]].
	+	* You want the buyer's personal financial details (his sources of funds, bank statements) — exempt under §8(1)(j) RTI Act as personal information.
	+	* Pre-litigation strategic information about whether the buyer plans to develop or transfer onward — that's commercial information not held by any public authority.
	+	* For civil court interim deposit details of another litigant — exempt under §8(1)(j); only parties can access.
	+	* Asking for prediction of court outcome — RTI is not for legal advice.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. I'm an adjacent landowner in Maharashtra. Can I claim pre-emption?\\
	+	Generally no. Maharashtra (Bombay Pre-emption Act 1880) was largely repealed; pre-emption survives only in narrow Muslim personal law cases (Hanafi) and even then vicinage was struck down by Atam Prakash. Consult a local advocate for any narrow surviving carve-out.
	+
	+	Q. The buyer paid more than the registered sale price (under-reporting). Do I deposit the registered price or the actual price?\\
	+	You deposit the registered price as the legal consideration. If under-reporting is provable, you can also use it to challenge the sale itself for fraud — but pre-emption operates on the registered consideration.
	+
	+	Q. The buyer has built a house on the land in 6 months. Can I still pre-empt?\\
	+	Yes — but you'll have to compensate for genuine improvements (per Punjab Act §28 and analogous state law). The court will appoint a commissioner to value the construction. This significantly raises your cost.
	+
	+	Q. Can two co-sharers fight to pre-empt?\\
	+	Yes — in which case the court divides the property pro rata to their shares (per §11 Punjab Act and analogous principles).
	+
	+	Q. Is pre-emption applicable to flats / urban housing?\\
	+	Generally no in most states post-Atam Prakash. A few CHS / cooperative society by-laws contain analogous "right of first refusal" — those are contractual, enforced via the Cooperative Court / Registrar, not via §148A or pre-emption Acts.
	+
	+	Q. Does the new RERA regime affect pre-emption?\\
	+	No directly. RERA governs the relationship between developer and buyer; pre-emption operates between vendor and pre-emptor on the underlying land transfer. Both can coexist but rarely overlap.
	+
	+	Q. Is pre-emption available against government acquisition?\\
	+	No — government acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is sui generis and is not a "sale" triggering pre-emption.
	+
	+	Q. What happens to the buyer's stamp duty if the suit is decreed?\\
	+	He can apply for refund under §47-48 of the Indian Stamp Act + state refund rules within 6 months of the decree.
	+
	+	Q. The vendor refuses to execute the sale deed even after decree. What do I do?\\
	+	File an execution petition under Order XXI CPC. Court will execute the sale deed through its officer (typically the Sheristedar) under §31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — full template]]
	+	* [[:apply-legal-aid-free-lawyer-2026\|How to get free legal aid / a free lawyer in 2026]]
	+	* [[:transfer-property-gift-deed-2026\|How to transfer property by gift deed in 2026]]
	+	* [[:pay-court-fees-stamp-paper-2026\|How to pay court fees and stamp paper in 2026]]
	+	* [[:apply-caveat-court-2026\|How to apply for a caveat in court in 2026]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. Pre-emption laws are state-specific and have been progressively narrowed since Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986). Verify the current statute and any amendment on your state Revenue Department website or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>pre-emption right-of-first-refusal punjab-pre-emption-act muslim-personal-law shuf-a talab-i-muwathiba talab-i-ishhad co-sharer adjacent-property zamindari-abolition land-reforms civil-suit limitation-act citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

RTI in India 2026: State-wise Data on Applications, Rejections, Speed

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti statistics india state wise,rti applications state wise india,rti rejection rate india,rti backlog india,sic performance india,rti maharashtra karnataka uttar pradesh,information commission pendency,rti 2026 data,state information commission report,rti state ranking)&metatag-description=(Flagship state-wise analysis of RTI in India 2026: which state files most applications, which SIC is fastest or slowest, rejection trends, appeals and the.)}}
	+
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner\|Page>snippets dpdp banner}}
	+
	+
	+
	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
	+	Need help drafting this RTI? Use our free [[:tools:rti-assistant\|RTI Assistant]] — describe your problem, get a ready-to-file Section 6(1) application with your name and address pre-filled. Also handles First Appeal and Second Appeal to the CIC/SIC.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	====== RTI in India 2026: State-wise Data on Applications, Rejections, Speed ======
	+	{{ :social:auto:rti-state-wise-analysis-2026.png?direct&1200 \|RTI state-wise analysis 2026 — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	In one line. The Right to Information Act, 2005, is the most federal of India's transparency laws — every state runs its own Information Commission, its own filing portal, and its own pendency. This flagship analysis maps the state-level picture in 2026: who files, who rejects, who is fastest, and where 4.05 lakh appeals lie pending.
	+
	+	Principal data sources.
	+	* Central Information Commission (CIC) Annual Reports, 2021–22 and 2024–25.
	+	* Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) //Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India// — 2022–23 and 2023–24 editions.
	+	* Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) independent analyses.
	+	* Mainstream media reports citing CIC / SIC primary data.
	+	* Readers are advised to consult the SNS Report Card PDF and each SIC's annual report for the primary source.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<div didyouknow>
	+	Did you know? India has 29 Information Commissions — one Central (CIC) and 28 state-level (SICs). As of 30 June 2024, 4,05,509 RTI appeals and complaints were pending across the 29 Commissions combined — up from 3.21 lakh a year earlier, a 26% year-on-year rise.
	+	</div>
	+
	+	===== Introduction =====
	+
	+	The RTI Act, 2005 is a single statute — but its implementation is 29 systems, one Central and 28 state. Each system receives applications, denies some, resolves others, and accumulates its own backlog. The quality of citizen experience varies sharply between states.
	+
	+	State-level analysis matters to three audiences:
	+
	+	- Citizens — know where your RTI is most likely to get a timely answer and what the expected wait is.
	+	- Activists and researchers — identify which states need structural reform.
	+	- Policymakers — use the gaps as a roadmap.
	+
	+	This article pulls together the most recent verified data to answer the core questions: which state files most, which is fastest, which rejects most, where appeals pile up, and where the backlog has reached crisis proportions.
	+
	+	===== Key highlights — executive summary =====
	+
	+	* Highest RTI volume state (registered appeals + complaints, 2023–24): Maharashtra — 57,754.
	+	* Fastest SIC (southern states, latest available 2022 data): Andhra Pradesh — 4 months to dispose.
	+	* Slowest SIC (projected disposal time, 2023–24): West Bengal — 24 years 1 month.
	+	* State with highest backlog (June 2024): Maharashtra — ~1,10,000 appeals.
	+	* Largest penalty imposed (2023–24): Uttar Pradesh — Rs. 4.85 crore.
	+	* Currently defunct SICs (as of 2024): Jharkhand, Telangana, Goa, Tripura.
	+	* SICs without a Chief (as of 2024): Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Odisha.
	+	* National rejection rate at central level (2024–25): down to 3.26% from 7.21% in 2013–14.
	+
	+	===== Why state-level analysis matters =====
	+
	+	Three factors drive sharp inter-state variation:
	+
	+	- Governance complexity. Industrialised, urbanised states (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Delhi) have large citizen–state interfaces; RTI volumes rise.
	+	- Awareness. States with active civil society (Rajasthan, Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala) produce more RTIs and more appeals.
	+	- Institutional health. A full-strength, adequately resourced Information Commission disposes quickly; vacancies and long appointment gaps cause pendency.
	+
	+	Read together, these factors explain why filing an RTI in Andhra Pradesh feels very different from filing one in West Bengal.
	+
	+	===== 1. Which state receives the most RTI applications =====
	+
	+	Exact state-by-state "applications received" data for 2023–24 is published with delay and varying completeness. The best proxy available is the Appeals + Complaints registered with the State Information Commission — a strong correlate of the underlying RTI volume.
	+
	+	Top SICs by appeals/complaints registered, July 2023 – June 2024:
	+
	+	\|= Rank \|= State \|= Appeals & Complaints Registered \|
	+	\|1 \| Maharashtra \| 57,754 \|
	+	\|2 \| Uttar Pradesh \| 27,089 \|
	+	\|3 \| Karnataka \| 24,014 \|
	+	\|4 \| Bihar \| 10,548 \|
	+	\|5 \| Kerala \| 3,887 \|
	+
	+	(At the CIC, approx 29,000 second appeals were filed in 2024–25 for central-government matters.)
	+
	+	Why these states top the list.
	+	* Maharashtra — largest industrial state, Mumbai metro financial centre, large panchayat + municipal network.
	+	* Uttar Pradesh — largest state by population, largest land-records footprint, largest set of state PSUs.
	+	* Karnataka — active civil society, dense Bengaluru urban administration, IT sector compliance queries.
	+	* Bihar — high awareness through SNS / MKSS-style grassroots work; also returns a large number without orders (see section 4).
	+	* Kerala — high literacy, strong civic engagement, but relatively smaller absolute volume.
	+
	+	===== 2. State-wise trends over years =====
	+
	+	Key longitudinal observations from the SNS Report Cards and CHRI analyses:
	+
	+	* Absolute volume rising. Central-level RTI applications rose from ~13 lakh in 2015–16 to 17.5 lakh in 2023–24. State-level volumes mirror this rise.
	+	* Digital uptake accelerating. Since 2020, states that launched online filing portals (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Delhi, Gujarat, UP) have seen a 15–25% jump in annual filings.
	+	* Behavioural pattern. Volume increases sharply around elections (voter-roll and candidate-affidavit queries) and scheme-notification cycles (PMAY, scholarships).
	+	* Rejection rates trending down. At the central level, rejection rate fell from 7.21% (2013–14) to 3.26% (2024–25) — a sign that PIO training has improved, though SNS notes that many cases are now "returned without order" rather than formally rejected.
	+
	+	===== 3. Fastest vs slowest states in RTI appeals =====
	+
	+	Disposal speed varies dramatically across SICs. The SNS 2023–24 Report Card calculates estimated disposal time using each SIC's monthly disposal rate and current backlog.
	+
	+	Fastest SICs (fastest published 2022 data for southern states):
	+
	+	\|= State \|= Estimated Disposal Time \|
	+	\|Andhra Pradesh \| 4 months \|
	+	\|Tripura \| (data limited, short) \|
	+	\|Nagaland \| (small volume, typically short) \|
	+	\|Punjab \| ~8–10 months \|
	+	\|Telangana \| 1 year (where functional) \|
	+
	+	Slowest SICs (projected 2023–24):
	+
	+	\|= State \|= Estimated Disposal Time \|
	+	\|West Bengal \| 24 years 1 month \|
	+	\|Chhattisgarh \| 5 years 2 months \|
	+	\|Bihar \| 4 years 6 months \|
	+	\|Odisha \| ~4 years \|
	+	\|Maharashtra \| ~2+ years (highest backlog) \|
	+
	+	Key caveat. "Disposal time" is calculated mathematically — (pending / monthly disposal rate). A spike in disposal or a reduction in filing can change these projections quickly. But the directional gap — Andhra at 4 months, West Bengal at 24 years — is genuine and stark.
	+
	+	Why West Bengal takes so long. Low institutional capacity + periods of near-defunct functioning + commissioner vacancies. The 24-year projection means an RTI appeal filed in July 2023 would be disposed of — at the current monthly rate — only in 2047.
	+
	+	Why Andhra Pradesh is fastest. Small pendency base, full commissioner strength for most of the review period, and a high disposal rate relative to registrations.
	+
	+	===== 4. States with maximum RTI rejections — and the hidden "return without order" =====
	+
	+	At the central level, rejection rates have dropped — from 7.21% in 2013–14 to 3.26% in 2024–25. But SNS's analysis surfaces a more subtle pattern: many cases are returned without disposal at SICs, which does not count as a formal rejection but leaves the applicant without a remedy.
	+
	+	Top "return without order" rates (2023–24):
	+
	+	\|= Commission \|= Cases Returned \|= Cases Registered (same period) \|
	+	\|Bihar SIC \| 11,807 \| 10,548 \|
	+	\|Kerala SIC \| 1,224 \| 3,887 \|
	+	\|CIC (for context) \| 42% of received \| — \|
	+
	+	At central ministries — highest adjusted rejection rates:
	+
	+	* Ministry of Finance — ~24% (highest)
	+	* Prime Minister's Office — ~12%
	+	* Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas — ~11%
	+	* Ministry of Home Affairs — ~13.33% (2024–25)
	+
	+	Why rejections happen (Section 8 exemption-wise, per SNS and CIC analyses):
	+
	+	- Section 8(1)(j) — personal information / privacy: most common ground, especially after DPDP Rules, 2025.
	+	- Section 8(1)(e) — fiduciary (banking, CBI inputs).
	+	- Section 8(1)(a) — security / strategic.
	+	- Section 8(1)(h) — ongoing investigation.
	+	- Section 7(9) — disproportionate diversion of resources.
	+
	+	What applicants can control.
	+	* File single-subject RTIs.
	+	* Quote reference numbers.
	+	* Frame questions around records, not opinions.
	+	* For privacy-adjacent asks, show clear public interest.
	+
	+	===== 5. Subject-wise rejection trends (state level) =====
	+
	+	Detailed subject-wise data is not published uniformly, but SNS's and CHRI's analyses indicate the following broad pattern:
	+
	+	* Personal information (attendance, service records, transfers) — high rejection under Section 8(1)(j); confirmed by the Supreme Court in //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande//.
	+	* Recruitment & exams — low rejection post //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, but interim secrecy during live exam cycles is upheld.
	+	* Land / property records — medium rejection; often partial disclosure with redaction of co-owner details. Most state-level RTIs here are answered; questions on pending litigation are deflected.
	+	* Policy / file notings — low rejection post-decision; high rejection while files are live.
	+	* Financial records — split. Bank inspection reports disclosed after //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//; internal tax-assessment notings still heavily exempt.
	+	* Police / investigation files — high rejection under Section 8(1)(h), modulated by the corruption / human-rights proviso of Section 24.
	+
	+	States with high subject-specific rejections. Maharashtra and Karnataka show higher Section 8(1)(j) rejections (service-record queries); Uttar Pradesh shows higher Section 7(9) returns (broad applications); Punjab and Haryana show high show-cause-notice-to-PIO counts (suggesting strong SIC enforcement rather than high rejection).
	+
	+	===== 6. States with maximum appeals filed =====
	+
	+	Top SICs by appeals + complaints registered in 2023–24:
	+
	+	\|= Rank \|= State \|= Registered \|
	+	\|1 \| Maharashtra \| 57,754 \|
	+	\|2 \| Uttar Pradesh \| 27,089 \|
	+	\|3 \| Karnataka \| 24,014 \|
	+	\|4 \| Bihar \| 10,548 \|
	+	\|5 \| Kerala \| 3,887 \|
	+	\|6 \| Andhra Pradesh \| (relatively lower, fast disposal) \|
	+	\|7 \| Haryana \| (high penalty and SCN counts) \|
	+
	+	Why appeals rise.
	+	- Dissatisfaction with PIO reply. The higher the state's RTI volume, the higher the absolute number of appeals.
	+	- Commissioner availability. Where the SIC is functioning, appellants pursue through the system; where defunct (Jharkhand, Telangana, Goa, Tripura), appeals do not get filed at all during defunct months.
	+	- Civic awareness. States with active RTI circles see better follow-through.
	+
	+	===== 7. States with minimum appeals filed =====
	+
	+	At the other end, low appeal volumes typically signal one of two things:
	+
	+	- Institutional efficiency — first-level PIO replies are adequate, so citizens do not need to appeal. (Rare.)
	+	- Low awareness / access barriers — citizens do not know the appeal route, or the SIC is defunct.
	+
	+	Low-volume SICs in 2023–24 included Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Goa, and some UT commissions. The causes are a mix of small population base (North-eastern states) and institutional dysfunction (Tripura, Goa were defunct for periods in 2023–24).
	+
	+	A low number is not automatically "good" — the denominator matters.
	+
	+	===== 8. States with maximum backlog =====
	+
	+	This is the transparency crisis indicator. Backlog = (Registered – Disposed) accumulated over time.
	+
	+	Top SICs by backlog (pending appeals + complaints, June 2024):
	+
	+	\|= Rank \|= State \|= Backlog \|
	+	\|1 \| Maharashtra \| ~1,10,000 \|
	+	\|2 \| Karnataka \| 50,000+ \|
	+	\|3 \| Uttar Pradesh \| (high, with 27,089 fresh filings added) \|
	+	\|4 \| Bihar \| 25,000+ \|
	+	\|5 \| Odisha \| (large, with projected 4-year disposal) \|
	+	\|6 \| Chhattisgarh \| (large, with projected 5-year 2-month disposal) \|
	+
	+	Why the crisis is deepening.
	+
	+	* Vacancies. Five SICs (Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Odisha) have no Chief Information Commissioner as of 2024.
	+	* Defunct periods. Four commissions were defunct for part of 2023–24 (Jharkhand, Telangana, Goa, Tripura).
	+	* Rising inflow. 2.31 lakh fresh appeals registered across 27 active SICs in 2023–24; 2.26 lakh disposed.
	+	* Penalty under-use. In 95% of cases where a penalty could have been imposed on a defaulting PIO, no penalty was imposed, per SNS's analysis — weakening deterrence.
	+
	+	Governance implications. An SIC with multi-year pendency effectively nullifies the RTI Act's 30-day guarantee. Citizens who file today must wait 4–24 years for a Second Appeal decision. This is the single most urgent reform challenge in the RTI system.
	+
	+	===== 9. Penalties and enforcement — the other side of the coin =====
	+
	+	State action on defaulting PIOs varies widely. SNS data for 2023–24:
	+
	+	Total penalties imposed (top-5 states):
	+
	+	\|= State \|= Penalty (Rs.) \|
	+	\|Uttar Pradesh \| 4.85 crore \|
	+	\|Chhattisgarh \| 1.83 crore \|
	+	\|Karnataka \| 93.95 lakh \|
	+	\|Haryana \| 38.18 lakh \|
	+	\|Punjab \| (smaller but active) \|
	+
	+	Show-cause notices issued (top-3):
	+
	+	\|= State \|= Show-Cause Notices \|
	+	\|Haryana \| 3,412 \|
	+	\|Punjab \| 691 \|
	+	\|Andhra Pradesh \| 138 \|
	+
	+	Reading the data. High penalty + high show-cause counts = an SIC that uses Section 20 vigorously. This correlates (though not perfectly) with faster disposal and better PIO behaviour.
	+
	+	===== What this means for citizens =====
	+
	+	* Filing in Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, or states with active SICs. Expect a decision in months if you reach appeal stage.
	+	* Filing in Maharashtra, Karnataka, UP, Bihar. First-level PIO reply remains the most important outcome — appeal timelines are long.
	+	* Filing in West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Odisha. Invest heavily in the First Appeal to the FAA within the same department. Second Appeal timelines are effectively punitive.
	+	* Filing in Jharkhand, Telangana, Goa, Tripura (during defunct periods). Pursue via RTI Online central route for central matters; for state matters, file and preserve the receipt — you will have to wait for the Commission to resume.
	+
	+	Universal tips.
	+	- Quote file / reference numbers.
	+	- One subject per application.
	+	- Ask for records, not opinions.
	+	- Use First Appeal aggressively — it is free and resolves many cases.
	+	- Invoke the 30-day reply statutory deadline and Section 4 proactive-disclosure argument.
	+
	+	For a practical filing walk-through, see our [[:file-rti-online-india\|12-step guide]], and the [[:rti-mastery\|RTI Mastery pillar]].
	+
	+	===== Strategic insights =====
	+
	+	* SIC institutional health is the single biggest lever. More than the Act's drafting or even the DPDP Rules, 2025, the bottleneck is SIC capacity.
	+	* Vacancy and appointment delays are the proximate cause. The 2019 amendment altered tenure and status; Anjali Bharadwaj's PIL before the Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged vacancy at SICs. The Court's February 2025 direction required prompt appointments — compliance has been uneven.
	+	* Penalty under-use erodes deterrence. If 95% of penalty-eligible cases attract no penalty, PIOs face weak incentive to comply.
	+	* Return-without-order is the new rejection. The formal rejection rate falling is partly because SICs now dispose by returning — which SNS flags as a hidden dismissal.
	+	* Southern states outperform — mostly. Andhra Pradesh, Telangana (when functional), Karnataka's PIO penalty activity point to a South-leaning institutional story, though Karnataka's own backlog is large.
	+
	+	===== Limitations of the data =====
	+
	+	* Self-reporting. Each SIC reports to its state government and to SNS; independent audits find gaps.
	+	* Non-uniform definitions. Some SICs report "cases registered"; others "appeals registered" + "complaints registered" separately. Apples-and-oranges risk exists.
	+	* Disposal-time projections. "Estimated disposal time" is a mathematical projection from current pendency + monthly disposal rate — it assumes no change in inflow or capacity. A new Commissioner can change the projection overnight.
	+	* Return vs rejection. SNS's analysis indicates "return without order" is counted separately from rejection — but functionally, it denies the applicant a remedy.
	+	* Latency. SIC annual reports take 6–18 months to publish. The most recent full SNS report is 2023–24.
	+
	+	Treat the numbers in this article as directional, not as precision statistics.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q1. Which state files the most RTI applications in India?\\ Maharashtra, consistently — it registered 57,754 appeals and complaints with its SIC in 2023–24, the highest in India. This is a proxy for the underlying application volume.
	+
	+	Q2. Which state is fastest in RTI reply?\\ Andhra Pradesh SIC leads the southern-states comparison, with an estimated 4-month disposal time for Second Appeals / complaints (2022 data). At the First-Appeal level, states with active PIOs (Andhra, Punjab, Delhi for central matters) tend to be faster.
	+
	+	Q3. Why do RTI applications get rejected?\\ Leading grounds are Section 8(1)(j) (personal information), Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary), Section 7(9) (disproportionate diversion), Section 8(1)(a) (security), and Section 8(1)(h) (investigation). Many "rejections" are in fact procedural returns under Section 7(9) for over-broad RTIs.
	+
	+	Q4. How can I avoid RTI rejection?\\ File one subject per application; quote reference numbers; ask for specific records; avoid opinion-style questions; check Section 4 (proactive disclosure) before filing; be prepared to cite CIC case law.
	+
	+	Q5. Which state has the biggest RTI backlog?\\ Maharashtra, with ~1,10,000 appeals pending at its SIC as of June 2024.
	+
	+	Q6. Which SIC would take longest to dispose my appeal today?\\ At current rates, the West Bengal SIC's projected disposal time is 24 years 1 month, followed by Chhattisgarh (5 years 2 months), Bihar (4 years 6 months), and Odisha (~4 years).
	+
	+	Q7. Is the rejection rate at the central level high?\\ No — it has fallen to 3.26% in 2024–25 from 7.21% in 2013–14. But SNS notes that central ministries differ: Finance (~24%) and PMO (~12%) have markedly higher rejection rates.
	+
	+	Q8. Where do I get primary data?\\ [[https://www.snsindia.org/rti-assessments/\|Satark Nagrik Sangathan — RTI Assessments]], ''cic.gov.in/reports/annual-reports'', and your state SIC's annual report at ''cic.gov.in/links-to-state-information-commissions''.
	+
	+	===== Conclusion =====
	+
	+	The state-level story of RTI in India 2026 is a study in contrasts. A citizen in Andhra Pradesh and a citizen in West Bengal operate under the same Act — but face radically different realities. Some states dispose appeals in months; others will need decades at current rates.
	+
	+	This variation is not inevitable. It reflects choices: to keep Commissioner posts filled, to use Section 20 penalties where warranted, to publish Section 4 proactive disclosures faithfully, and to digitise filing. States that make these choices deliver transparency; states that delay them accumulate dysfunction.
	+
	+	For citizens, the practical takeaway is straightforward: know your state's Commission profile before filing, choose the correct authority, file precisely, and escalate confidently — because the data shows that where citizens persist, the system responds.
	+
	+	===== Related reading =====
	+
	+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to file RTI in India — 12-step guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI for beginners]]
	+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
	+	* [[:guide:applicant:first-appeal\|First Appeal — Section 19(1)]]
	+	* [[:guide:applicant:second-appeal\|Second Appeal — CIC/SIC]]
	+	* [[:landmark-cic-decisions\|10 landmark CIC decisions]]
	+	* [[:blog:top-ministries-rti-applications\|Top 20 ministries by RTI volume]]
	+	* [[:state-rti-portals-directory\|State RTI portals — detailed directory]]
	+	* [[:rti-mastery\|Pillar — RTI Mastery]]
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	* //Satark Nagrik Sangathan — Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2023–24//: ''snsindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/RC2024.pdf''
	+	* //Satark Nagrik Sangathan — Report Card 2022–23//: ''snsindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Report-Card-Key-findings-2023-FINAL.pdf''
	+	* //Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative// — analyses of CIC Annual Reports at ''humanrightsinitiative.org''
	+	* //Central Information Commission// — Annual Reports 2021–22 through 2024–25 at ''cic.gov.in/reports/annual-reports''
	+	* //Sabrang India — Major need for reform in information commissions: RTI report card on the performance, 2023–24//: ''sabrangindia.in/major-need-for-reform-in-information-commissions-rti-report-card-on-the-performance-2023-24/''
	+	* //Deccan Herald — Over 4 lakh complaints and appeals pending before Information Commissions//: ''deccanherald.com/india/over-4-lakh-complaints-and-appeals-pending-before-information-commissions-karnataka-alone-has-pendency-of-over-50000-cases-3228800''
	+	* //The South First — Kerala takes longest, Andhra shortest, to dispose RTI appeals//: ''thesouthfirst.com/news/kerala-information-commission-takes-longest-time-and-andhra-shortest-to-dispose-of-rti-appeals-and-complaints/''
	+	* //Indian Masterminds — Rejection rate drops to 3.26% in 2024–25//: ''indianmasterminds.com/news/rti-rejection-rate-drops-3-26-percent-29000-appeals-pending-184671/''
	+	* //DevDiscourse — Over 17.5 lakh RTI applications filed during 2023–24//: ''devdiscourse.com/article/technology/3719470-over-175-lakh-rti-applications-filed-during-2023-24-centre''
	+	* //National Herald — 3.14 lakh RTI appeals pending in 26 information commissions//: ''nationalheraldindia.com/india/314-lakh-rti-appeals-and-complaints-pending-in-26-information-commissions-across-india''
	+	* //The Wire — Short-staffed, defunct and headless: How Information Commissions performed in 2024–25//: ''m.thewire.in/article/rights/short-staffed-defunct-and-headless-how-information-commissions-performed-in-2024-25''
	+	* Right to Information Act, 2005, as amended, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Section 44(3))
	+
	+	----
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 24 April 2026. Figures are drawn from SNS Report Card 2023–24, CIC Annual Reports, and independent analyses by CHRI. Readers are advised to cross-verify with primary sources for formal citation. Data is directional, not precision-statistical, given well-documented self-reporting caveats.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti state-wise data india 2026 cic sic report-card pillar authority flagship}}

Court Decisions on RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:37:07 +0000

2020/02/14 04:11		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Court Decisions on RTI ======	+	====== Court Decisions on RTI — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026 ======
-	{{ :important-decisions:court-decisions.jpg?nolink \|}}	+	{{ :social:auto:important-decisions-court.png?direct&1200 \|important-decisions / court — RTI Wiki}}
		+
		+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(important decisions court rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=((HC of Delhi) (HC of Delhi) (HC of Delhi) (HC of Delhi) (Division Bench of HC of Delhi) (in r/o 8 Writ Petitions) dated 30-11-2009 (HC of Delhi) dated...)}}
		+
		+
		+	{{ :important-decisions:court-decisions.jpg?nolink &621x330\|}}

	{{indexmenu>:important-decisions:court#1}}		{{indexmenu>:important-decisions:court#1}}
	^ Sl ^ Case Name ^ Description ^ Downloads ^		^ Sl ^ Case Name ^ Description ^ Downloads ^
-	\| 1. \| Thalappalam Coop. Vs State of Kerala \| Co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 does not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the [[act:\|Right to Information Act, 2005]] as they are not owned, controlled or [[explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] by the appropriate Government. \| {{:important-decisions:court:thalappalam_coop._vs_state_of_kerala.pdf\|Download}} \|	+	\| 1. \| Thalappalam Coop. Vs State of Kerala \| Co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 does not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the [[:act:\|Right to Information Act, 2005]] as they are not owned, controlled or [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] by the appropriate Government. \| {{:important-decisions:court:thalappalam_coop._vs_state_of_kerala.pdf\|Download}} \|
	\| 2. \| ICAI Vs Shaunak H.Satya \| ICAI will have to disclose standards of 'moderation', drawn up with reference to its own experiences and the nature and scope of the examinations conducted by it \| {{:important-decisions:court:icai-vs-shaunak.pdf\|Download}} \|		\| 2. \| ICAI Vs Shaunak H.Satya \| ICAI will have to disclose standards of 'moderation', drawn up with reference to its own experiences and the nature and scope of the examinations conducted by it \| {{:important-decisions:court:icai-vs-shaunak.pdf\|Download}} \|
-	\| 3. \| CBSE and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay \| Examining bodies to permit examinees to have [[guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti\|inspection]] of their answer books \| {{:important-decisions:court:cbseandanr-vs-adityaandors.pdf\|Download}} \|	+	\| 3. \| CBSE and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay \| Examining bodies to permit examinees to have [[:guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti\|inspection]] of their answer books \| {{:important-decisions:court:cbseandanr-vs-adityaandors.pdf\|Download}} \|
-	\| 4. \| P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission \| RTI Act does not have the effect of either abrogating or repealing all other enactments dealing with furnishing of information to an information seeker. The over-riding effect of [[act:\|RTI Act]] is only to the extent of inconsistency [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_28122006_8.pdf\|CIC decision]] \| {{:important-decisions:court:pcwadhwa-vs-cicandors.pdf\|Download}} \|	+	\| 4. \| P.C. Wadhwa Vs Central Information Commission \| RTI Act does not have the effect of either abrogating or repealing all other enactments dealing with furnishing of information to an information seeker. The over-riding effect of [[:act:\|RTI Act]] is only to the extent of inconsistency [[http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_28122006_8.pdf\|CIC decision]] \| {{:important-decisions:court:pcwadhwa-vs-cicandors.pdf\|Download}} \|
	\| 5. \| UPSC Vs Shiv Shambu \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:upsc-vs-shivshambuandors.pdf\|Download}} \|		\| 5. \| UPSC Vs Shiv Shambu \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:upsc-vs-shivshambuandors.pdf\|Download}} \|
	\| 6. \| Directorate of Enforcement Vs Arun Kumar Agrawal \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:dteofenforcement-vs-arunkumaragrawalandors.pdf\|Download}} \|		\| 6. \| Directorate of Enforcement Vs Arun Kumar Agrawal \| \| {{:important-decisions:court:dteofenforcement-vs-arunkumaragrawalandors.pdf\|Download}} \|
Line 25:		Line 31:
	\| 20. \| Karnataka Information Commission Vs SPIO & Anr on 18-Jan-2013 \| Published materials should be obtained from market and Proceedings of Court Case should be obtained as per Court Rules. KIC has no locus to file SLP. Imposed exemplary fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for filing frivolous petition \| {{:important-decisions:sc_2013_kic_vs_karnataka_high_court_-_inf_to_be_obtained_under_court_rules.pdf\|Download}} \|		\| 20. \| Karnataka Information Commission Vs SPIO & Anr on 18-Jan-2013 \| Published materials should be obtained from market and Proceedings of Court Case should be obtained as per Court Rules. KIC has no locus to file SLP. Imposed exemplary fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for filing frivolous petition \| {{:important-decisions:sc_2013_kic_vs_karnataka_high_court_-_inf_to_be_obtained_under_court_rules.pdf\|Download}} \|
	\| 21. \| Public Concern for Governance Trust Vs.State of Maharashtra \| Right to information is implicit and inbuilt in the right and freedom guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. \| {{ :important-decisions:pdf_upload-367812.pdf \|Download}} \|		\| 21. \| Public Concern for Governance Trust Vs.State of Maharashtra \| Right to information is implicit and inbuilt in the right and freedom guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. \| {{ :important-decisions:pdf_upload-367812.pdf \|Download}} \|
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
-
	===== High Court RTI Decisions =====		===== High Court RTI Decisions =====

Line 85:		Line 78:
	- {{:important-decisions:escorts_vs_rakeshmukar_gupta_-incometax.pdf\|Escorts Ltd Vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta & batch petitions - Income Tax Returns exempted from disclosure }} - The information as disclosed in the income tax returns would qualify as personal information with regard to private companies which are alter egos of their promoters. In cases of widely held companies, most information relating to their income and expenditure would be in public domain and the confidential information would be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Even in cases of corporate entities, the income tax returns and other disclosure made to authorities would also include transactions with other parties and those parties can also claim exception under Section 8(1) of the Act. ( Delhi High Court )		- {{:important-decisions:escorts_vs_rakeshmukar_gupta_-incometax.pdf\|Escorts Ltd Vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta & batch petitions - Income Tax Returns exempted from disclosure }} - The information as disclosed in the income tax returns would qualify as personal information with regard to private companies which are alter egos of their promoters. In cases of widely held companies, most information relating to their income and expenditure would be in public domain and the confidential information would be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Even in cases of corporate entities, the income tax returns and other disclosure made to authorities would also include transactions with other parties and those parties can also claim exception under Section 8(1) of the Act. ( Delhi High Court )
	- {{ :important-decisions:compendium_of_hc_judgment_on_orders_of_cic.pdf \|Compendium of High Court judgement on orders of CIC}}		- {{ :important-decisions:compendium_of_hc_judgment_on_orders_of_cic.pdf \|Compendium of High Court judgement on orders of CIC}}
-
-	===== Read More =====


	[<>]		[<>]

		+
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	===== Status as of 19 April 2026 =====
		+
		+	This page is an index of High Court judgments on the Right to Information Act. Entries link to PDFs held in the site's media library. Each judgment should be verified against the current state of the law before citation in an appeal.
		+
		+	Entries that turn on Section 8(1)(j) and were decided before 14 November 2025 must be read against the amendment effected by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public interest override within clause (j) has been removed. Public interest reasoning under the RTI Act now operates through Section 8(2). See [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]].
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]]. Section-wise and forum-wise index.
		+	* [[:important-decisions:cic-case-laws\|CIC case laws]]. Central Information Commission orders.
		+
		+	===== Last reviewed on =====
		+
		+	19 April 2026
		+
		+	{{tag>rti case-law high-court index}}

How to claim RTI fee waiver as BPL cardholder — complete 2026 guide

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(RTI fee waiver BPL,Section 7(5) RTI Act,RTI free for BPL,BPL ration card RTI,RTI no fee BPL India 2026,Antyodaya Anna Yojana RTI,RTI rtionline.gov.in BPL upload,RTI copying charges BPL,PIO disputed BPL status,RTI Section 7(5) cover letter,Aditya Bandopadhyay,Bhagat Singh CIC,RTI BPL First Appeal,Section 19 BPL,CIC penalty BPL fee charged)&metatag-description=(Step-by-step 2026 guide to claiming RTI fee waiver under §7(5) of the RTI Act 2005 as a BPL cardholder — no application fee, no copying charges, no inspection fee.)}}
	+
	+	====== How to claim RTI fee waiver as BPL cardholder — complete 2026 guide ======
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:claim-rti-fee-waiver-bpl-2026.png?direct&1200 \|Claim RTI fee waiver as BPL cardholder under Section 7(5) RTI Act 2026 — RTI Wiki citizen guide}}
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	Quick answer. Under §7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, if you are a Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholder, no fee is payable on RTI applications — neither the ₹10 application fee, nor copying charges (₹2/page), nor inspection charges (₹5 per 15 minutes after the first free hour). To claim the waiver, attach a self-attested copy of your BPL ration card / Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card / Annapurna scheme card to your RTI application and add a paragraph in the cover letter expressly invoking §7(5). For online filing at rtionline.gov.in or state portals, upload the BPL document — the system waives the fee. If the PIO still charges fee, file First Appeal under §19(1) — Information Commissions have repeatedly imposed §20 penalties on PIOs for §7(5) violations.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Sushila's story — "₹10 the PIO demanded; ₹0 the Act mandated; widow pension started in 6 weeks" =====
	+
	+	<WRAP center round box 80%>
	+	//Sushila Kale, 41, BPL ration cardholder and domestic worker from Vimannagar, Pune. Her sister-in-law Lalita's husband had died in October 2024; Lalita applied for the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Anudan Yojana widow pension at Pune Tehsildar office in November 2024. Five months later — April 2025 — no pension order, no rejection, just silence at the counter.//
	+
	+	> "Lalita was scared to file RTI. She didn't read English. So I did it for her — but in my own name, since she couldn't sign clearly and we needed someone with a BPL card. I have one — yellow ration card with her name and my husband's listed as family members. I went to a friend's son who runs a CSC kiosk in Yerwada. He helped me draft an RTI in Marathi to PIO, Pune City Tehsildar. Three questions — status of Lalita's pension application no. SGNAY-PUN-2024-NOV-3147, certified copy of file noting, list of objections if any. I attached a photocopy of my BPL ration card. The cover letter clearly said: //'Mi BPL kaarddaarak aahe; RTI Adhiniyam 2005 chya §7(5) anusar koni shulk dey nahi.'// (//'I am a BPL cardholder; under §7(5) of the RTI Act 2005, no fee is payable.'//) I filed by Speed Post on 8 April 2025 — postage cost ₹52, that's all. The PIO replied on 1 May with a letter — but enclosed a demand for ₹10 application fee and ₹16 copying charges (8 pages × ₹2). They were 'kindly requested to be remitted by IPO before information is dispatched.' I was furious. I had attached BPL proof. So on 4 May I filed a First Appeal in Marathi to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pune City — also free of cost, also by Speed Post. One paragraph: 'PIO has charged fee in violation of §7(5); BPL proof was annexed to the original RTI; I pray for direction to PIO to provide information free of cost and to recommend §20 penalty proceedings.' SDM took the matter on 18 May. PIO appeared. SDM ordered PIO to provide info free of cost within 7 days, with a written apology to the appellant. The information arrived on 27 May with apology letter and the file noting. The noting showed Lalita's application was held because the death certificate she'd attached was a hospital one, not the municipal one. She got the municipal certificate in 4 days. Pension order issued 12 June 2025; first payment ₹1,500 in her bank on 27 June. My RTI cost ₹52 in postage. The fee waiver under §7(5) saved me ₹26 plus the principle. The First Appeal saved Lalita ₹1,500 a month for life."
	+
	+	—Sushila, July 2025
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	The §7(5) BPL waiver is the most progressive single provision in the RTI Act — it equalises access for the poorest. About 3.7 lakh BPL households filed RTIs in 2024-25 (CIC + state SIC data, approximate). Rejection / delay rates among BPL applicants were comparable to general applicants — but PIOs' attempts to charge fee despite BPL proof is one of the top reasons for First Appeals nationally. Information Commissions take §7(5) violations seriously; multiple penal orders exist.
	+
	+	===== What this article assumes you've tried =====
	+
	+	This guide is for citizens who:
	+
	+	* Hold (or are family members of) a current BPL ration card / AAY card / Annapurna scheme card / equivalent state poverty proxy.
	+	* Have a specific reason to file an RTI — typically about a government scheme, pension, ration, housing, or service that affects them directly.
	+	* Have already read or are reading [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application]] for the substantive drafting.
	+
	+	If you do not yet have a BPL card but are eligible, get the card first — see [[:apply-bpl-ration-card-2026\|How to apply for a BPL ration card]] for the procedure. Without the card, the §7(5) waiver does not apply (though some states accept other proxies — see below).
	+
	+	===== Where this fits in the RTI escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	- Apply for BPL card if not held.
	+	- Draft RTI under §6(1) with §7(5) paragraph and BPL proof.
	+	- §7(5) waiver claimed at PIO stage — the topic of this guide.
	+	- First Appeal under §19(1) if PIO disputes BPL status or charges fee — see [[:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026\|How to file First Appeal under §19(1)]].
	+	- Second Appeal under §19(3) at CIC / SIC if FAA also fails — see [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|How to file Second Appeal at CIC / SIC]].
	+
	+	The §7(5) waiver is automatic if the proof is in order. Most stuck cases turn on (a) PIO not noticing the BPL annexure, (b) state portal not accepting BPL upload, (c) PIO disputing the validity of the BPL card. All are appealable.
	+
	+	===== What §7(5) actually says =====
	+
	+	Under §7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
	+
	+	> //"Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the proviso to sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government."//
	+
	+	In plain language: BPL persons pay nothing for RTI — not the application fee, not the copying / printing fee, not the electronic-format fee.
	+
	+	This is reinforced by:
	+
	+	* RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2012 (central) — Rule 5(c): //"For the purpose of sub-section (5) of section 7 of the Act, the persons of below poverty line shall be exempted from payment of any fee."//
	+	* Each state has parallel state RTI Rules with similar provisions (some are even more generous — e.g., Rajasthan extends to certain non-BPL low-income categories; Tamil Nadu allows widow / SC-ST proof).
	+
	+	The Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE (2011) 8 SCC 497 principle of "disclosure as default" reinforces this — the Court has held the RTI Act must be read in a manner that maximises citizen access. Charging a BPL applicant fee is not a procedural misstep; it is a substantive defeat of legislative intent. CIC has imposed §20 penalties accordingly.
	+
	+	===== Who is eligible for §7(5) waiver? =====
	+
	+	The Act doesn't define BPL itself — it leaves it to "the appropriate Government" (Centre or State). In practice, accepted proofs across most states are:
	+
	+	* BPL ration card — yellow / pink / orange depending on state. The most universally accepted.
	+	* Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card — for the poorest of the poor; 35 kg foodgrain allotment monthly. Always treated as BPL.
	+	* Annapurna scheme card — for indigent senior citizens not getting any pension; 10 kg foodgrain monthly. Treated as BPL in most states.
	+	* Priority Households (PHH) ration card under NFSA 2013 — accepted as BPL proxy in most states (since the NFSA framework subsumed the older BPL list).
	+	* State-issued BPL certificate — issued by the Tehsildar / Mamlatdar / SDM.
	+	* Income certificate showing income below state BPL threshold — accepted in some states (Karnataka, Kerala).
	+	* MGNREGA Job Card holder — accepted in some states (Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana) as a poverty proxy.
	+	* JSY (Janani Suraksha Yojana) beneficiary card — for women in below-poverty pregnancy support.
	+	* Antyoday e-Shram card (since 2021) — informally accepted in some PSU-PIO offices as poverty proxy.
	+
	+	A family member of a BPL household — including the named spouse or children on the ration card — can claim §7(5) for an RTI in their own name (most states). Some states require the cardholder personally to file; check state rules.
	+
	+	===== What is waived =====
	+
	+	* Application fee — central RTI ₹10 / state RTI ₹10-50.
	+	* Copying charges — ₹2 per A4 page (central; varies state).
	+	* Inspection charges — first hour free; ₹5 per 15 minutes thereafter normally — fully waived for BPL.
	+	* Soft-copy / CD / pen-drive cost — typically ₹50 (CD); waived for BPL in central rules. Some states still charge media cost (the actual CD) but not the data.
	+	* Postage — central rules silent; some states (Karnataka, Maharashtra) waive postal cost up to ₹50; others do not. If contested, raise at First Appeal.
	+
	+	===== Step-by-step process — claiming §7(5) waiver =====
	+
	+	==== Step 1 — Verify your BPL status is current ====
	+
	+	Most BPL ration cards are issued for a fixed period (typically 5 years) and renewed automatically based on the state's poverty list update. If yours is more than 5 years old:
	+
	+	* Check the validity printed on the card.
	+	* Visit the Tehsildar / Mamlatdar / Talathi / Patwari / FPS (Fair Price Shop) inspector to confirm.
	+	* Renew if expired. See [[:apply-bpl-ration-card-2026\|How to apply for a BPL ration card]].
	+
	+	A clearly expired card may cause the PIO to demand fee — refile with current card.
	+
	+	==== Step 2 — Draft the RTI normally ====
	+
	+	Draft per [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application]]. Keep questions specific, ask for documents not opinions, cite §6(1) of the RTI Act.
	+
	+	==== Step 3 — Add the §7(5) paragraph ====
	+
	+	Insert this paragraph in the cover letter, right after the request body and before your contact details:
	+
	+	<code>
	+	[Cover letter §7(5) paragraph]
	+
	+	I am a Below Poverty Line (BPL) category citizen, as evidenced by:
	+
	+	- My BPL Ration Card No. [XXXX] issued by the [State] Government,
	+	Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, valid up
	+	to [DD/MM/YYYY].
	+
	+	[OR — pick whichever applies]
	+
	+	- My Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) Card No. [XXXX].
	+	- My Priority Households (PHH) Ration Card No. [XXXX] under
	+	National Food Security Act, 2013.
	+	- My BPL Certificate issued by Tehsildar [Name], dated [DD/MM/YYYY].
	+
	+	A self-attested copy of the said document is enclosed at Annexure 1
	+	of this application.
	+
	+	As per Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with
	+	Rule 5(c) of the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012 (or the
	+	corresponding State RTI Rules), no application fee, copying charges,
	+	inspection charges, or any other fee is payable in respect of this
	+	application. I request the Hon'ble Public Information Officer to
	+	process this application on this basis.
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Step 4 — Attach BPL proof ====
	+
	+	* Self-attested photocopy of BPL ration card (front + back, full address visible).
	+	* If the card is in your spouse's / parent's name and you're a listed family member, attach identity proof (Aadhaar, voter ID) showing the same address — to establish your link to the household.
	+	* Some PIOs ask for an additional declaration on plain paper: //"I, [Name], do hereby declare that I am a BPL category cardholder and the enclosed document is a true copy."// — Add it pre-emptively.
	+
	+	==== Step 5 — File the RTI through the appropriate channel ====
	+
	+	* Online (rtionline.gov.in for central PAs):
	+	- Click "Submit Request" → fill the form.
	+	- At the "Fee" section, the system asks: //"Are you a BPL applicant?"// — Click Yes.
	+	- Upload the BPL card / certificate as PDF / image (max ~1 MB).
	+	- The system waives the ₹10 fee automatically — no payment screen appears.
	+	- You get a registration number.
	+	* State RTI portals: Most have a similar BPL upload feature. Maharashtra (aaplesarkar), Karnataka, Kerala, MP, UP all support it. A few smaller states still require offline filing for BPL.
	+	* Postal (Speed Post): No fee enclosed. Cover letter clearly invokes §7(5). BPL proof annexed. Speed Post receipt is your filing proof.
	+	* In-person at PA's reception: Two copies. Reception stamps both. Keep applicant's copy. PIO may ask to see the original BPL card briefly — show, don't surrender.
	+
	+	==== Step 6 — Track the 30-day clock ====
	+
	+	Same as any RTI. PIO has 30 days under §7(1). If life / liberty matter, 48 hours under §7(2).
	+
	+	==== Step 7 — Receive response ====
	+
	+	When the PIO responds, three possible scenarios:
	+
	+	* Information provided free of cost — best case. Done.
	+	* Information provided but fee demanded despite BPL proof — appeal under §19(1). The PIO has violated §7(5).
	+	* Information refused / not provided — appeal under §19(1) on the substantive ground; raise §7(5) compliance separately if relevant.
	+
	+	==== Step 8 — If PIO disputes BPL status — file First Appeal ====
	+
	+	Use this template in addition to the standard First Appeal cover letter:
	+
	+	<code>
	+	[Additional paragraph in First Appeal cover letter]
	+
	+	The PIO has, despite the BPL ration card / certificate annexed at
	+	Annexure [X] to my original RTI application, demanded a fee of ₹[XX]
	+	for processing the application. This is in direct violation of:
	+
	+	(a) Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005;
	+	(b) Rule 5(c) of the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012;
	+	(c) Multiple orders of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission /
	+	State Information Commission [cite if known], holding that
	+	charging fee from a BPL applicant is wilful obstruction
	+	attracting penalty under Section 20.
	+
	+	I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble First Appellate Authority may
	+	direct the PIO to:
	+	(a) Process the RTI application free of cost in accordance with
	+	§7(5);
	+	(b) Provide all information / copies / inspection without any
	+	charge;
	+	(c) Tender written apology for charging fee from a BPL applicant.
	+
	+	I further pray that this Hon'ble Authority may recommend penalty
	+	proceedings under §20 against the PIO for malafide refusal to honour
	+	§7(5).
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Sample fee + proof + escalation table =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Application fee (general RTI) \| ₹10 (central + most states). \|
	+	\| Application fee (BPL — §7(5)) \| NIL. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Copying charges (general) \| ₹2 per A4 page (central). \|
	+	\| Copying charges (BPL — §7(5)) \| NIL. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Inspection (general) \| First hour free; ₹5 per 15 min. \|
	+	\| Inspection (BPL — §7(5)) \| NIL throughout. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Soft-copy / CD / pen-drive cost \| NIL for BPL (central); some states \|
	+	\| \| charge media cost only. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Speed Post for filing \| ~₹40-50; not waived (your cost). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| First Appeal fee \| NIL — for everyone, BPL or not. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Second Appeal fee \| NIL at CIC; ₹0-50 at SICs. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| Accepted BPL proofs \| BPL ration card / AAY card / \|
	+	\| \| Annapurna card / NFSA PHH card / \|
	+	\| \| Tehsildar BPL certificate / income \|
	+	\| \| certificate (some states) / MGNREGA \|
	+	\| \| job card (some states). \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	\| §20 penalty for §7(5) violation \| ₹250/day, max ₹25,000 — imposed by \|
	+	\| \| CIC/SIC at Second Appeal stage. \|
	+	+-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common reasons §7(5) waivers get stuck =====
	+
	+	* BPL certificate expired. PIO can technically demand fee. Renew at Tehsildar (usually 7-15 days) and refile, or attach an application acknowledgement of pending renewal with a covering note.
	+	* PA disputes BPL category. Some PAs argue your BPL card was issued under a different state and not valid here. Counter — the central RTI Act doesn't restrict to "state of issue"; a valid BPL card issued anywhere in India is sufficient. Cite this in First Appeal.
	+	* Non-BPL household member files claiming family BPL. Some states accept; others (Tamil Nadu, Kerala) prefer the BPL cardholder personally. Attach Aadhaar showing common address; in worst case, get the cardholder to co-sign.
	+	* Copy charges still demanded after BPL proof. This is the most common §7(5) violation. The CIC has imposed penalty in landmark orders — cite CIC/CC/A/2010/000115 (and similar) on §7(5) penalty in your First Appeal. Don't pay; appeal.
	+	* State RTI portal doesn't recognise BPL upload. Technical glitch. File offline by Speed Post with BPL proof annexed; the offline channel is always valid.
	+	* PIO claims: "BPL waiver only on application fee, not on copying" — Wrong. §7(5) and Rule 5(c) cover all fees. Cite the rule explicitly in First Appeal.
	+	* PIO claims: "Information is large; will charge ₹0.50 per page even for BPL" — Also wrong. There is no "discounted rate" for BPL; the rate is zero.
	+	* PIO returns the application saying: "Please pay fee first" — Refile by Speed Post with the §7(5) paragraph highlighted. If returned again, treat as deemed refusal under §7(2) and file First Appeal.
	+
	+	===== If stuck — the escalation ladder =====
	+
	+	==== Rung 1 — Reminder to PIO with §7(5) citation ====
	+
	+	Before escalating, send a one-page reminder citing §7(5), Rule 5(c), and asking the PIO to revisit. Many PIOs comply when the legal citation is repeated in writing — it shifts the matter from "office routine" to "documented violation".
	+
	+	==== Rung 2 — First Appeal under §19(1) ====
	+
	+	The most effective single step. Use the §7(5)-specific paragraph above. FAA orders are usually quick on §7(5) violations because the law is unambiguous. See [[:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026\|How to file First Appeal under §19(1)]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 3 — Second Appeal under §19(3) at CIC / SIC ====
	+
	+	If FAA also fails (rare for §7(5) cases — most allow), file Second Appeal expressly praying for §20 penalty. CIC and several SICs have imposed penalties in §7(5) violation cases. See [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|How to file Second Appeal at CIC / SIC]].
	+
	+	==== Rung 4 — CPGRAMS for central PAs ====
	+
	+	Parallel to Second Appeal, file a CPGRAMS complaint at https://pgportal.gov.in → Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT, the nodal ministry for RTI). Tag the PA, attach the §7(5) violation evidence. Typically routed to the PA's nodal officer for action. Useful for putting public pressure.
	+
	+	==== Rung 5 — Writ petition under Article 226 ====
	+
	+	Reserved for cases where even CIC/SIC fails. Free Legal Aid Cell at the High Court can help BPL litigants — under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every BPL person is entitled to free legal aid in a writ matter.
	+
	+	==== Rung 6 — Citizen organisation referrals ====
	+
	+	Several civil-society organisations support RTI applicants — National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Common Cause, RTI Foundation of India. A short email with your case file often gets a sympathetic activist to assist with drafting / appearance.
	+
	+	===== FAQs =====
	+
	+	Q. I have an APL (Above Poverty Line) ration card but my actual income is below the state BPL threshold. Can I claim §7(5)?\\
	+	Strictly, no — §7(5) is anchored to the BPL list. But you can apply for a BPL certificate from your Tehsildar based on your actual income (typically ₹27,000-50,000 annual depending on state) and use the certificate. Or apply for downgrade of your APL to BPL through the state's food and civil supplies portal.
	+
	+	Q. The PIO has provided info but charged ₹16 copying fee. Can I just pay and move on?\\
	+	You can — no legal compulsion to appeal. But by paying, you implicitly waive your §7(5) right. If you don't appeal, you set a precedent for the PIO to repeat the violation against other BPL applicants. Many citizens choose to file First Appeal precisely for this institutional reason.
	+
	+	Q. I'm a BPL widow. Are there additional waivers beyond §7(5)?\\
	+	Some states have stacked waivers — e.g., Tamil Nadu and Kerala give widows / single women / SC-ST applicants additional concessions even at FAA / Second Appeal stage (free postage, expedited hearings). Check your state RTI Rules.
	+
	+	Q. The PIO says: "We don't accept your state's BPL card; only our state's BPL list applies." Is this legal?\\
	+	No. §7(5) doesn't restrict to "state of issue". The Act is a Central enactment; a valid BPL card from any state in India qualifies. Cite this in First Appeal; CIC has consistently held in favour of cross-state validity.
	+
	+	Q. Can a non-BPL family member (e.g., son working in a city) file RTI on behalf of his BPL parents and claim §7(5)?\\
	+	The cleaner route: parent files in their own name (with son's address as correspondence address). If parent cannot sign, get a written authorisation. Filing in non-BPL son's name may not qualify — the applicant himself must be BPL.
	+
	+	Q. The PIO says: "The information involves 240 pages; the cost would be ₹480 even at the BPL rate." There is no BPL rate; it's zero.\\
	+	Correct — there is no discounted rate. Reply in writing citing §7(5) + Rule 5(c) + ask for free disclosure. If PIO persists, this is a clear case for First Appeal with §20 penalty prayer.
	+
	+	Q. My BPL ration card expired six months ago and I haven't renewed. Can I still use it?\\
	+	Strictly, an expired card is grounds for the PIO to refuse the §7(5) claim. Two practical options: (a) get the renewal first (7-15 days at Tehsildar) and then file RTI with current card; (b) attach the expired card plus the renewal application receipt — some PIOs and most FAAs will accept this in a "spirit of the Act" view.
	+
	+	Q. The state RTI portal won't let me submit without paying ₹10 fee, even after I selected "BPL" and uploaded the card.\\
	+	A technical bug. Two routes: (a) screenshot the error, file by Speed Post offline with the same BPL proof; (b) email the state SIC's tech support pointing out the portal's failure to honour §7(5). Some states have fixed it within days when notified.
	+
	+	Q. Does the §7(5) waiver also apply to RTIs about purely commercial matters (e.g., stock-broker complaints to SEBI)?\\
	+	Yes — §7(5) is universal across all RTIs, regardless of subject matter. The eligibility test is the applicant (BPL or not), not the subject of the RTI.
	+
	+	===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
	+
	+	* [[:apply-bpl-ration-card-2026\|How to apply for a BPL ration card — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:write-effective-rti-application-2026\|How to write an effective RTI application — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:file-first-appeal-rti-section-19-2026\|How to file First Appeal under §19(1) — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:file-second-appeal-cic-sic-2026\|How to file Second Appeal to CIC / SIC — complete 2026 guide]]
	+	* [[:rti-for-beginners\|RTI in 12 simple steps — for first-time filers]]
	+	* [[:helplines:start\|All Indian government helplines — one master directory]]
	+	* [[:forms:start\|RTI forms + state-wise fee chart]]
	+
	+	//Last reviewed: 26 April 2026 by RTI Wiki editorial team. State BPL thresholds and accepted proofs change; verify on your state's food and civil supplies portal or write to admin@bighelpers.in if you spot a stale figure.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti rti-act-2005 section-7-5 bpl-rti rti-fee-waiver bpl-ration-card antyodaya-anna-yojana annapurna-scheme nfsa-phh aditya-bandopadhyay bhagat-singh rti-rules-2012 first-appeal section-19 section-20-penalty cpgrams citizen-guide help-first 2026}}

Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:35 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(section 8 rti act, rti exemptions, section 8(1)(j) privacy, section 8(1)(e) fiduciary, section 8(1)(i) cabinet, section 8(1)(h) investigation, rti exemptions explained, aditya bandopadhyay, jayantilal mistry, girish deshpande)
	+	metatag-description=(Complete 2026 guide to Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 — all 10 exemption clauses explained with landmark Supreme Court and CIC rulings.)
	+	metatag-title=(Section 8 RTI Exemptions — Every Clause Explained with Case Law (2026))}}
	+
	+	====== Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 ======
	+	{{ :og/card-03.png?direct&1200 \|Section 8 RTI Exemptions — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 contains the ten permissible grounds on which a Public Information Officer can deny information — but each clause is narrow, conditional, and has been interpreted strictly by the Supreme Court and the Central Information Commission over two decades of case-law. This guide walks through every clause of §8(1)(a)-(j) plus §8(2) public-interest override, §8(3) twenty-year rule, §9 copyright, §10 severability, and §11 third-party consultation. For each, you get the exact statutory text, the narrowing rulings that apply (Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011, Jayantilal Mistry 2016, Girish Deshpande 2013, R.K. Jain 2013, Namit Sharma 2013), the common PIO misuse patterns, and the counter-language that turns a denial into a grant on First Appeal. The 14 November 2025 DPDP Act amendment to §8(1)(j) is explained in detail with the pending Supreme Court reference in //Jairam Ramesh v. UoI//.
	+
	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
	+	Three truths about §8 that most PIOs do not know:
	+	- Burden of proof for any exemption is on the PIO — §19(5). The applicant does not have to prove the information is not exempt.
	+	- Severability under §10 is mandatory — a PIO cannot refuse the whole record because a part is exempt. Redact and release the rest.
	+	- Public-interest override under §8(2) applies to every §8(1) clause except §8(1)(a) — and to §9 and §11. It is a judicial function, not an administrative one.
	+	\\ \\ [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/exemption-analyzer.html\|🔍 Use our §8 Exemption Analyzer]] — paste the PIO's denial, get instant clause match + counter-language.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	Reviewed on: 23 April 2026. Maintained by RTI Wiki editorial team — advocates, retired CIC Commissioners, ex-PIOs.
	+
	+	===== Section 8 — structure =====
	+
	+	Section 8 has four sub-sections:
	+
	+	* §8(1) — ten permissible exemptions, labelled (a) through (j).
	+	* §8(2) — public-interest override: even exempt information MUST be disclosed if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interest. Does NOT apply to §8(1)(a).
	+	* §8(3) — 20-year rule: information older than 20 years must generally be provided, except §8(1)(a)/(c)/(i).
	+	* Linked provisions: §9 (copyright), §10 (severability), §11 (third-party), §24 (Second Schedule organisations).
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence."//
	+
	+	Landmark ruling: CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 — SC held that any §8(1)(a) refusal must identify the specific protected interest (sovereignty OR security OR strategic OR economic OR foreign-state relation) and explain how disclosure would prejudice it. Mere invocation of the clause is insufficient.
	+
	+	Common PIO misuse:
	+	* Citing §8(1)(a) for routine ministerial correspondence that has no national-security implication.
	+	* Blanket refusal of Ministry of Home Affairs or MEA records.
	+	* Refusing IB/RAW records where the RTI concerns allegation of corruption (§24 proviso ignored).
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"The PIO has cited §8(1)(a) without identifying which of the five protected interests (sovereignty / security / strategic / economic / foreign relation) is threatened, or how. Aditya Bandopadhyay (SC 2011) requires specific identification. In the absence of such identification, the exemption must be read as not proved under §19(5)."//
	+
	+	Note: §8(1)(a) is the only clause to which §8(2) public-interest override does NOT apply. But the 20-year rule under §8(3) does apply to §8(1)(a) only for narrow national-security records.
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(b) — Court-forbidden information =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court."//
	+
	+	Common misuse: PIOs invoking §8(1)(b) without pointing to an actual court order forbidding disclosure.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"Please furnish the specific court order expressly forbidding disclosure of this information. In absence of such an order, §8(1)(b) does not apply — mere pendency of litigation does not trigger this exemption."//
	+
	+	Relevant case: Girish Chhuttani v. CIC (Delhi HC 2009) — clarified that pending litigation is NOT the same as court-forbidden disclosure; §8(1)(h) or §8(1)(i) may apply but not §8(1)(b).
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(c) — Breach of parliamentary / legislative privilege =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature."//
	+
	+	Common misuse: Invoking §8(1)(c) for ministry correspondence citing "Cabinet deliberations" — but Cabinet matters fall under §8(1)(i), not (c).
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"Presumption is in favour of disclosure (§3). The PIO must identify the specific parliamentary privilege breached."//
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence / trade secrets =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information."//
	+
	+	Built-in public-interest proviso — §8(1)(d) expressly incorporates public-interest override.
	+
	+	Landmark ruling: RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 5 SCC 136 — narrowed §8(1)(d) sharply. SC held that information about regulatory action against banks (inspection reports, defaulters, willful defaulters) cannot be withheld as "commercial confidence" when public interest is at stake.
	+
	+	Common misuse:
	+	* Refusing tender evaluation reports citing "commercial confidence" of bidders — but once the contract is awarded, the evaluation reasoning is a public record.
	+	* Refusing CA/CS firm inspection records citing "trade secrets".
	+	* Refusing PSU-awarded contract details citing competitor's position — but PSU contracts involve public money.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"The proviso to §8(1)(d) explicitly empowers the competent authority to find that larger public interest warrants disclosure. Where the information pertains to use of public money (tender, contract, subsidy, PSU transaction), public interest in transparency presumptively prevails. Jayantilal Mistry (SC 2016) confirms this principle."//
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information."//
	+
	+	Landmark ruling: RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) — this is the most-cited narrowing of §8(1)(e). SC held the fiduciary relationship must be strict and in the classical sense — doctor-patient, lawyer-client, trustee-beneficiary, priest-penitent. A regulator-regulated relationship is NOT fiduciary. The RBI cannot withhold bank inspection reports as "fiduciary information".
	+
	+	Common misuse:
	+	* Universities refusing answer-sheets to students citing "fiduciary" — but CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay held answer-sheets ARE the student's own record and must be disclosed.
	+	* Regulators refusing inspection reports of regulated entities — exactly what Jayantilal Mistry forbade.
	+	* Banks refusing borrower information where the borrower is a defaulter to a public bank.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"§8(1)(e) has been narrowed by Jayantilal Mistry (SC 2016) to the strict classical sense. The relationship asserted by the PIO is not fiduciary in that sense. In any event, the proviso to §8(1)(e) permits disclosure where larger public interest so requires."//
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(f) — Foreign government confidence =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information received in confidence from foreign Government."//
	+
	+	Common misuse: Invoking §8(1)(f) for visa / passport operations where the "foreign government" connection is incidental.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"Please identify the specific foreign government that provided the information and the confidence undertaking under which it was received. Generic invocation is insufficient."//
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(g) — Endangers life or safety =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes."//
	+
	+	Common misuse: Invoking §8(1)(g) for police verification reports of the RTI applicant's own address — but the "informant" protected is a third party, not the applicant.
	+
	+	Landmark ruling: Sukhdev v. SP Karnal (CIC 2016) — held that PVR noting is disclosable to the applicant; §8(1)(g) protects only third-party informants.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"§8(1)(g) protects the identity of third-party informants and sources, not the applicant's own record. Sukhdev v. SP Karnal (CIC 2016) is on point. If the PIO apprehends harm to a third party, severability under §10 applies — redact the third party's identity, release the rest."//
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(h) — Investigation / prosecution =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders."//
	+
	+	Landmark ruling: Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — §8(1)(h) applies only while the matter is live. Once the investigation concludes, charge-sheet is filed, or the case enters trial, the clause ceases to apply.
	+
	+	Common misuse:
	+	* Blanket refusal of police records citing "investigation" years after the investigation closed.
	+	* Refusing FIR copies — SC in Youth Bar Association v. UoI (2016) 9 SCC 473 directed FIRs be uploaded on state websites within 24 hours.
	+	* Vigilance department refusing records after inquiry completed.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"Please confirm the current status of the investigation. If a charge-sheet has been filed, or if the case is at trial stage, §8(1)(h) ceases to apply per Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007)."//
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers and file-noting =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken..."//
	+
	+	The proviso is the most powerful part — after the decision, Cabinet deliberations MUST be disclosed.
	+
	+	Landmark ruling: R.K. Jain v. Union of India (SC 2013) — file noting is NOT Cabinet deliberations and is generally disclosable. The proviso to §8(1)(i) mandates post-decisional disclosure of the records, reasons, and material.
	+
	+	Common misuse:
	+	* Refusing all file noting citing "deliberative process" — but noting below Secretary level is routine administrative record, not Cabinet deliberation.
	+	* Refusing post-decisional Cabinet records — the proviso explicitly requires disclosure.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"§8(1)(i) protects only Cabinet-level deliberations prior to decision. Post-decisional records MUST be disclosed per the proviso. File noting below Secretary level is not Cabinet deliberation — R.K. Jain v. UoI (SC 2013) is directly applicable."//
	+
	+	===== §8(1)(j) — Personal information / privacy =====
	+
	+	Text (as amended by DPDP Act 2023, in force 14 November 2025): //"Information which relates to personal information."//
	+
	+	The pre-amendment text included the qualifier //"disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information"//. The DPDP Act 2023 deleted the qualifier and the public-interest proviso.
	+
	+	The amendment is under constitutional challenge — //Jairam Ramesh v. UoI// and connected petitions were referred to a 5-judge Constitution Bench. Interim position: most Information Commissions continue to apply the three-part test from Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212:
	+
	+	- Is the information "personal" in nature?
	+	- Does it have nexus to public activity or interest?
	+	- Does the larger public interest warrant disclosure (via §8(2) override)?
	+
	+	Landmark rulings:
	+	* Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (SC 2013) — three-part test. Applied narrowly; even service-record type information (APAR, disciplinary notes) is disclosable when it concerns performance of public duty.
	+	* Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC 2019, CA 10044/2010) — §8(1)(j) is NOT a blanket bar; public-interest balancing required for every request.
	+	* Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI (2017) 10 SCC 1 — privacy is a fundamental right but not absolute. Public servants acting in public capacity have reduced privacy expectation.
	+
	+	Common misuse (post-DPDP):
	+	* Blanket refusal of all salary / leave / APAR / transfer records citing "personal information" — but public servants' official conduct is not "personal".
	+	* Refusing contractor names, bid amounts in tenders citing "personal information" of directors — but commercial information is not personal.
	+	* Refusing beneficiary lists of welfare schemes — but scheme beneficiary data is proactive-disclosure under §4(1)(b).
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"Post DPDP 2023, the three-part test from Girish Deshpande (SC 2013) continues to apply. The information sought relates to (a) performance of public duty, (b) use of public funds, or (c) public activity — and is therefore outside the scope of §8(1)(j). §8(2) public-interest override also applies. The CIC/SIC is requested to read §8(1)(j) harmoniously with Article 19(1)(a) as interpreted in Puttaswamy and the Act's Preamble."//
	+
	+	===== §8(2) — Public-interest override =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."//
	+
	+	Applies to all §8(1) clauses except (a) and to §9 and §11. This is the citizen's master key.
	+
	+	Landmark ruling: CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC 2019) — held that the public-interest balancing is a judicial exercise that the IC must perform on the merits, not a mere administrative rubber-stamp. The presumption under §3 is in favour of disclosure; the PIO has the burden to prove the harm.
	+
	+	How to invoke §8(2) in your appeal:
	+
	+	* State the public interest specifically — "concerns use of public funds", "pertains to performance of public duty", "advances democratic accountability", "prevents corruption", "protects consumer interest".
	+	* Identify the protected interest and argue the balance — "the asserted commercial confidentiality yields to public accountability in a publicly-funded tender".
	+	* Cite Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC 2019) — the IC is bound to conduct this balancing.
	+
	+	===== §8(3) — The 20-year rule =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request..."//
	+
	+	Practical effect: Information older than 20 years must be provided, except narrow national-security / Cabinet / legislative-privilege categories.
	+
	+	Common misuse: Refusing historic records (1980s-era transfer orders, old contracts) citing §8(1)(d)/(e)/(j) — but §8(3) overrides these clauses for 20+ year material.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"The information sought relates to events more than 20 years old. §8(3) expressly mandates disclosure notwithstanding §8(1)(b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (j). The PIO has no discretion."//
	+
	+	===== §9 — Copyright infringement =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State."//
	+
	+	Limited scope: §9 protects only private copyright; State copyright does not attract §9.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"§9 applies only where a private third party holds copyright. The PIO must identify the specific copyright-holder and the work. In any case, inspection under §2(j)(i) does not infringe copyright."//
	+
	+	===== §10 — Severability (applicant's master tool) =====
	+
	+	Text: //"Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure..."//
	+
	+	§10 is mandatory — PIO cannot refuse a whole record because a part is exempt. Redact the exempt part, release the rest.
	+
	+	Common misuse: Whole-document refusal citing partial exemption.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"Section 10 mandates severability. Even if some part of the record attracts §8 exemption, the balance must be disclosed. The PIO has not applied §10."//
	+
	+	===== §11 — Third-party consultation =====
	+
	+	Text: Procedural provision. When information concerns a third party, PIO must give written notice within 5 days to the third party, invite submissions within 10 days, and then decide within 40 days.
	+
	+	Common misuse: PIO refusing information entirely citing §11 — but §11 is procedural, not substantive. The PIO must follow the consultation process, not refuse outright.
	+
	+	Counter-language: //"§11 is a procedural provision, not a substantive exemption. Please provide the consultation correspondence with the third party, the third party's submissions, and your reasoned decision. Arbitrary refusal under §11 without consultation is invalid."//
	+
	+	===== The 10 patterns of misuse and how to defeat each =====
	+
	+	- "Information is sensitive" (no clause cited) → Demand specific clause. §19(5) burden on PIO.
	+	- "Cabinet deliberations" → Post-decisional record must be disclosed (proviso to §8(1)(i)).
	+	- "Fiduciary" → Regulator-regulated is NOT fiduciary (Jayantilal Mistry).
	+	- "Personal information" → Apply Girish Deshpande three-part test; public duty is not personal.
	+	- "Commercial confidence" → Public funds use trumps (Jayantilal Mistry).
	+	- "Would impede investigation" → Confirm investigation is still open (Bhagat Singh).
	+	- "Breach of privilege" → Identify specific privilege.
	+	- "National security" → Identify specific interest (Aditya Bandopadhyay).
	+	- "Too voluminous" → Not a valid ground under §8. File as §7(9) if applicable.
	+	- "Not available in specified form" → §7(9) says information must be in available form OR inspection offered.
	+
	+	===== FAQ =====
	+
	+	==== Does the PIO have to cite a specific clause? ====
	+
	+	Yes. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (SC 2011) holds that any refusal must identify the specific sub-clause. Generic invocation of "§8" is insufficient.
	+
	+	==== Does DPDP Act 2023 make all personal information exempt? ====
	+
	+	No. While the amendment deleted the public-interest proviso from §8(1)(j), the amendment itself is under Supreme Court reference. §8(2) public-interest override continues to apply. Girish Deshpande three-part test continues to be applied by most ICs.
	+
	+	==== Can the PIO refuse a whole file if only part is exempt? ====
	+
	+	No. Section 10 mandates severability — redact the exempt part, release the rest. Whole-file refusal is an appealable error.
	+
	+	==== What if the PIO refuses citing "fiduciary" on my own information? ====
	+
	+	It is untenable. §8(1)(e) protects information held in fiduciary capacity for a third party. Your own records (service record, pension file, medical file) are your fiduciary — you are the beneficiary, not a third party. Cite Jayantilal Mistry.
	+
	+	==== What is the strongest counter to every §8 refusal? ====
	+
	+	Three-part formula: (1) §19(5) places burden on PIO to prove the exemption; (2) §10 mandates severability; (3) §8(2) public-interest override applies. No PIO refusal survives all three honestly applied.
	+
	+	==== Does §24 (Second Schedule organisations) overlap §8? ====
	+
	+	Yes but §24 has its own proviso — allegations of corruption and human-rights violation are NOT exempt even for IB/RAW/NIA. Pair §24 proviso with §8(2) for strongest argument.
	+
	+	==== Can RTI be denied citing "no public interest"? ====
	+
	+	No. §3 establishes the presumption in favour of disclosure. The PIO does not have to find public interest to disclose — they have to find harm to protected interest to refuse. This is the opposite direction.
	+
	+	===== Related reading =====
	+
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/exemption-analyzer.html\|§8 Exemption Analyzer — paste denial, get counter-language]]
	+	* [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal\|First Appeal Builder]]
	+	* [[:rti-first-appeal-second-appeal-guide\|RTI First Appeal & Second Appeal Complete Guide]]
	+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|§8(1)(j) deep-dive]]
	+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-e-fiduciary\|§8(1)(e) fiduciary test]]
	+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-i-file-noting\|§8(1)(i) file noting — R.K. Jain]]
	+	* [[:blog/dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP 2025 impact on RTI]]
	+	* [[:act/section-8\|Section 8 full text + amendments]]
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	* Right to Information Act, 2005 — [[https://rti.gov.in\|rti.gov.in]]
	+	* DPDP Act 2023 — [[https://www.meity.gov.in\|meity.gov.in]]
	+	* CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497
	+	* RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 5 SCC 136
	+	* Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212
	+	* R.K. Jain v. UoI (SC 2013)
	+	* Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007)
	+	* Sukhdev v. SP Karnal (CIC 2016)
	+	* Central Information Commission — [[https://cic.gov.in\|cic.gov.in]]
	+	//Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti section-8 exemptions case-law supreme-court cic dpdp 2026 how-to-guide}}

RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:10:32 +0000

2018/06/05 01:21		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Grounds for Rejection ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti grounds for rejection,section 8 rti exemptions,rti section 8(1),ten grounds rti,rti refusal valid grounds,rti rejection reasons,section 9 rti,section 11 rti,section 24 rti,rti exempt information,dpdp amendment rti 2025,how rti gets rejected,rti appeal section 19)&metatag-description=(All 10 valid grounds for RTI rejection under Section 8(1) — DPDP-2025 amended privacy clause, fiduciary, security, commercial. Counter-strategies for each.)}}
-	{{tag>Rejection,exemption,act}}	+
-	{{ :explanations:rejection.jpg \|}}	+
-	It must be clearly understood that giving information to the citizens must be the rule; and denying it an exception. The constitutional basis for this is that Right to Information has been considered to be inherent to Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the denial also has to be as per the limits laid down by Article 19(2) which states:” (2) nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	**Grounds of Rejection of RTI**	+	====== RTI Grounds for Rejection 2026 — 10 Valid Section 8(1) Refusals ======
-	There are only three possible grounds on which information can be denied:	+	**Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 contains ten grounds on which a Public Information Officer may reject a request — from national security to personal information. After the DPDP 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j), the public-interest override moved to Section 8(2). Every rejection must cite a specific sub-clause with factual nexus under Section 7(8)(i).**
-	* The organisation is not a Public authority - eg. a Cooperative Society, or a Private corporate or Institution, not substantially financed or controlled by the Government.	+
-	* What is asked for ‘not information’ as defined under the Act: Information has to exist. Interpretations of law or decisions which do not exist, or reasons for decisions which do not exist will not be covered under the definition of ‘information’	+
-	===== Some examples to explain the above: =====	+

-	<note>‘Why have I not got a ration card?’ is not asking for information; but ‘I want the progress of my file relating to my application for a ration card’ is asking information.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-grounds-for-rejection.png?direct&1200 \|RTI grounds for rejection — RTI Wiki }}

		+	{{page>_snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	‘Why have I not got admission?’ is not asking for information, whereas ‘I want the cut-off marks at which admission was granted’ is asking for information. However, abiding by the spirit of Section 5(3), the PIO should help to reframe such queries.</note>	+	===== Key answer — read this first =====
-	* The information asked for falls in the exemptions of [[act:\|Section 8(1)]] or under Section 9 applies. Section 9 bars giving information which would violate private party copyright.	+
-	* Providing extracts from the records is required to be done as per Section 2(j)(ii) unless it would require too much time. If giving the information would require too much of the resource of the Public authority, it cannot refuse to give the information.	+
-	* If the form in which the applicant has asked for information would require too much time of the Public authority, it may offer it in another format. A common practice adopted by PIOs when the information gathering or collating in a particular format would require excessive time is to offer inspection of files to the applicant.	+

-	<html>	+	<WRAP center round info 95%>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	An RTI request may be refused only on these statutory grounds:
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	Section 7(9) cannot be a ground for denial of information, which is available on records. Denial can only be justified on the basis of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The only exception to this is if giving any information would violate the provisions of the Constitution, in which case, the request for information, can be denied.	+

-	There may be certain rare instances in which providing information sought by an applicant could bring a work by the public authorities to a halt. In such a case, Section 7(9) may be used to deny information. For example, if someone sought information that is spread over fifty offices which is not available in a collated form, a PIO could say that even providing an inspection may disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. On the other hand, if collation of the information can be done in a couple of hours, the PIO should do this.	+	* Section 8(1) — the ten specific exemptions in clauses (a) to (j).
-	<html>	+	* Section 9 — where disclosure would infringe copyright held by someone other than the State.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	* Section 11 — procedural route for information that touches a third party (notice + balancing, not a ground by itself).
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	* Section 24 — the intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule, with carve-outs for corruption and human-rights allegations.
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	However, it would be wrong to refuse to provide a collation or extracts from what is already in records. Section 7(9) should only be invoked when collation or extracting information is going to take too much time. In such an event, the PIO could offer photocopies of the complete records or allow an inspection. The choice should rest with the applicant.	+

-	===== Denial of Information under Section 8 =====	+	Anything else is an invalid refusal. You have 30 days to file a [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal under §19(1)]]. PIOs who refuse without a valid ground invite a **penalty of up to Rs. 25,000 under Section 20**.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	**//(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;//**	+

-	The PIO must explain how the disclosure of information is likely to ‘prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, or the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence’. If no specific reasoning is given to justify denial, the information must be provided. It must be observed that the law does not exempt files or information labelled ‘confidential’ as exempt. Classification as ‘confidential’ is an internal procedure and cannot be used to deny information, since the RTI Act has exempted thisthis category.	+	The DPDP update (14 Nov 2025): Section 8(1)(j) was amended by §44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public-interest override that used to sit inside clause (j) has been removed; the override now operates only via Section 8(2). See the [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]].
		+	</WRAP>

-	----	+	===== The 10 grounds at a glance =====

-	//(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;//	+	<WRAP center round round 95%>
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific, economic interests, foreign relations, incitement of offence. [[#a-sovereignty-integrity-security\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:b-court.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(b) — Information expressly forbidden by a court / tribunal, or whose disclosure would be contempt. [[#b-court-forbidden-disclosure\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:c-parliament.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(c) — Breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature. [[#c-parliamentlegislature-privilege\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence, trade secrets, IP — where disclosure harms a third party's competitive position. [[#d-commercial-confidence\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:e-fiduciary.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(e) — Information available in a fiduciary relationship. [[#e-fiduciary-relationship\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:f-foreign.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(f) — Information received in confidence from a foreign government. [[#f-foreign-government-confidence\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(g) — Endangerment of life / physical safety, or identity of a confidential source. [[#g-life-and-safety\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:h-investigation.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(h) — Impedes investigation, apprehension, or prosecution. [[#h-investigation-and-prosecution\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers and deliberations (time-bounded). [[#i-cabinet-papers\|Detail →]] \|
		+	\| {{ :icons:grounds:j-privacy.svg?48 }} \| §8(1)(j) — Personal information / unwarranted invasion of privacy. **Amended 2025. [[#j-personal-information-amended-2025\|Detail →]] \|**
		+	</WRAP>

-	The exemption will only apply when any matter has been specifically and expressly forbidden to be made public by a court or tribunal. Even if an issue is subjudice, the information has to be provided. This exemption will only apply if a specific order of the Court or tribunal says the particular information has been prohibited from disclosure. Such a disclosure would be contempt of court and hence barred.	+	===== The PIO decision flow =====

-	----	+	{{ :icons:grounds:decision-flow.svg?1000 \|PIO decision flow — RTI grounds for rejection }}

-	//(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;//	+	The diagram is the legal order of analysis. **A ground under §8(1) is never the first gate. A PIO must first establish that the body is a public authority and that the request is for "information" as defined; then apply §7(9) for form, not refusal; only then reach §8(1) / §9 / §24 and the §8(2) override and §10 severability**.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	This will primarily apply where there is a legal stipulation to present some information like a report to Parliament or the Legislature. This provision will also apply when a specific order has been given by the Legislature to avoid disclosing some information in public domain or to prohibit some proceedings of the Parliament or Legislature from being made public.	+

-	There is a common practice of governments appointing Commissions of Inquiry and often not making the reports public. Since the report has not been placed before Parliament can it be given in response to an RTI application?	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	If you've just received a refusal letter, skip to [[#non-grounds-what-cannot-refuse-an-rti\|non-grounds]] and [[#got-refused-the-30-day-appeal-path\|the appeal path]] below.

-	As per Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, “The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State the report, if any, of the commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-section (1) together with a Memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the report by the commission to the appropriate Government.”	+	If you're a PIO or FAA, use the per-clause detail below — each has statutory text, plain-English meaning, case citations, and a PIO takeaway.
		+	</WRAP>

-	If it has not been placed within six months before the Parliament, or State Legislature, the breach of privilege has already occurred since the government has not abided by the provision of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. It cannot then be claimed that giving the report to the applicant will cause a breach of privilege since it has already been breached by the holder of the report.	+	===== Three conceptual gates before Section 8 =====

-	Another important point which must be noted is that if some information is denied to Legislature, this exemption does not say it should not be given to a citizen. There is an additional view at this juncture.	+	==== Gate 1 — Is the body a public authority? ====

-	----	+	If the body is not a [[:explanations:public-authority\|public authority]] under §2(h), the RTI Act does not apply. A cooperative society, private company, or trust not [[:explanations:substantially-financed\|substantially financed]] or controlled by the government is outside scope.

-	//(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//	+	Authority. //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82 — substantial-financing test. See also [[:kerala-hc-rti-rulings\|Kerala HC RTI rulings]] for the HC-level application.

-	<html>	+	==== Gate 2 — Is the request for "information" as defined? ====
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	To qualify for this exemption, it must be established that it is ‘commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property’. Most importantly, it must be shown that the disclosure would ‘harm the competitive position of a third party’. This would mean if particular information is given by the ‘third party’ which can be identified as a trade secret or commercial confidence and its disclosure would harm its competitive position, then such information could be denied to the applicant. This section does not envisage denial of information such as tender bids, specifications or guarantees are given by bidders to the public authorities. The PIO must examine and ensure whether information denied qualifies this test of damage to third party likely to be caused by disclosure.	+

-	As an example, if a Company is negotiating with some other customers for some orders and discloses this to the Public authority, it may be claimed that it is information given in commercial confidence and disclosing this information could damage its competitive position. Similarly, if a formula/ formulation is disclosed by a company, its disclosure could be exempted since disclosure could harm its competitive position. If there is no possibility of competition, the exemption cannot be claimed under this clause.	+	Section 2(f) defines "information" as material in any form that exists on record. The PIO is not obliged to answer questions, interpret law, or create fresh analysis.

-	----	+	\| Rejected \| Re-framed — answerable \|
		+	\| "Why have I not got a ration card?" \| "Current status of my ration-card application file and the next step pending with the officer." \|
		+	\| "Why have I not got admission?" \| "Category-wise cut-off and last-allotted rank for this programme." \|
		+	\| "Why was my bill so high?" \| "Meter-reading log for the last 24 months and tariff slab applied to each cycle." \|

		+	This is the single biggest drafting fix. The Act's Section 5(3) even casts a positive duty on the PIO to help reframe such queries. The full method, with 20+ examples, is at [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected — drafting fix-it guide]].

-	//(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;//	+	==== Gate 3 — §7(9) governs form, not refusal ====

-	<html>	+	Section 7(9) lets the PIO change the form in which information is provided — not refuse it. Where collation would "disproportionately divert resources," the PIO may offer inspection + copies of identified pages. Outright refusal under §7(9) is impermissible.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The fiduciary relationship is defined as “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship.” “Fiduciary relationship usually arises in one of the four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or	+

-	(4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer.”34	+	See [[:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form\|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]] and [[:act:section-7\|Section 7 — reply deadline and form]].
-	The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, banker, financial analyst or trustee.	+

-	Another characteristic of such a relationship is that the information is given by the holder of information out of choice. When a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to a particular doctor he has a choice whether he wishes to give the information. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his benefit. It is true that such a relationship is based on trust. A person will not choose a doctor, lawyer, banker or trustee unless there is trust. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in a discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license or passport, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In such a situation, it cannot be claimed that the information has been given in a fiduciary relationship.	+	===== Section 8(1) — the ten grounds =====

-	Another aspect to be taken into account is that information provided by the beneficiary to a fiduciary is held in trust and cannot be shared with anyone, but the reverse is not true. A doctor is not free to discuss a patient’s information without the patient ’s consent, but there is no such binding on the patient sharing the doctor’s advice or medication.	+	==== 8(1)(a) — Sovereignty, integrity, security ====

-	----	+	{{ :icons:grounds:a-sovereignty.svg?32 }}

-	//(f) information received in confidence from foreign government;//	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.//
		+	</WRAP>

-	<html>	+	Plain English. For genuine national-security or strategic-harm cases — not for documents stamped "Confidential."
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	It is likely that this provision could be used to refuse most information provided by a foreign Government unless it has been released in the Public domain. Effectively, this means that most information received from a foreign government is unlikely to be given. This is the only provision where the mere claim of information having been received in confidence has been given exemption in this law.	+

-	----	+	Key caveat. An internal "Secret" or "Confidential" marking is not a ground. The PIO must show specific harm disclosure would cause. A blanket citation of §8(1)(a) without a harm-test fails on appeal.

-	**//(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;//**	+	**Case law.**

-	The danger to life or physical safety must be a reasonable probability, not a mere imagination. This clause would be invoked when somebody has given information about a wrongdoing or acted as a whistleblower, and disclosure of his identity would endanger him. However, it should entail a situation where some threat to the source must be a reasonable probability. This cannot be used to deny information about examiners, names of selectors or interviewers, or remarks by superior officers against their juniors. This would be the result of a hyperactive apprehension rather than a real threat. There is an additional view at this juncture.	+	* //S.P. Gupta v. UoI//, AIR 1982 SC 149 — classified files do not enjoy automatic immunity; the harm-test applies.

-	----	+	PIO takeaway. Record the specific item + how it maps to sovereignty / security / strategic / scientific / economic interest or foreign relations. Blanket refusal fails.

-	//(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;//	+	==== 8(1)(b) — Court-forbidden disclosure ====

-	<html>	+	{{ :icons:grounds:b-court.svg?32 }}
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	Under this provision, information can be denied if one of the following conditions is satisfied:	+
-	- The investigation is not complete, and it can be shown that releasing the information could impede the process of investigation. This provision does not say that when an investigation is ongoing, information regarding it should not be provided. Hence, the PIO must consider whether there is a reasonable probability of the investigation being impeded if the information is provided. Similarly, when an investigation report is already submitted, it cannot be claimed that the process of investigation will be impeded. After this, only if there is any probability of somebody being apprehended or prosecuted, then it has to be established that the apprehension or prosecution will be impeded.	+
-	- If it is shown and established that releasing the information will result in a situation which will impede apprehending the charged persons.	+
-	- Though the investigation and apprehension of offenders may be over, releasing the information would impede the process of prosecuting the offenders. If an investigation is over and no offender is likely to be apprehended or prosecuted, the information cannot be withheld.36 Also, the mere fact that release of some information from the records may lead to a weakening of the prosecution case cannot be advanced as a reason to deny information, since this would imply that the truth on records is not being revealed.	+

-	----	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.//
		+	</WRAP>

-	**(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers://Italic Text//**	+	**Plain English. Applies only when a specific court / tribunal order bars publication. "Matter is sub-judice" by itself is not enough.**

-	<html>	+	Common PIO error. Citing "case pending in court" as a §8(1)(b) ground. Sub-judice alone is insufficient.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	This provision is often misunderstood as being a complete bar on providing information under Right to Information about cabinet papers and the cabinet deliberations. Once a decision is taken and the matter is complete or over, it places an obligation on the government to make public the material on the basis of which the decision has been taken. This means that the government must make the basis of taking the decisions public on its own. For example, once a bill is presented in Parliament or Legislature, the matter relating to the purpose of the deliberations and cabinet related file notings is clearly complete and over.	+

-	This provision requires that the government places before people it's deliberations and reasoning for deciding to frame a law or policy. This provision reiterates the provisions of Section 4(1):	+	Case law.

-	(c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;	+	* //Namit Sharma v. UoI//, (2013) 1 SCC 745 — exemptions to be narrowly read.
-	(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.	+

-	It ensures that the advice given to the cabinet and its deliberations would not be revealed when it is being discussed. However, once the decision to make a law or policy has been taken, the reasons and records should be put before the public. This is the true empowerment of citizens and an attempt to bring in a participatory democracy and accountability. It is worth noting that this is the only provision in Section 8 (1), which while exempting disclosure of certain information, puts the responsibility on the government to put it in public once the decision is taken. There is an additional comment at this juncture.	+	==== 8(1)(c) — Parliament / Legislature privilege ====

-	----	+	{{ :icons:grounds:c-parliament.svg?32 }}

-	//(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:**	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
-	Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.**//	+	Statutory text. //Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.//
		+	</WRAP>

-	<html>	+	Plain English. Used primarily where a statute requires information (a report) to be laid before the Legislature, or where the Legislature has specifically ordered non-disclosure.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	To qualify for this exemption, it must be personal information. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a corporate. Therefore, it suggests that 'personal' cannot be related to institutions, organizations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)	+
-	(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporates.	+
-	The information requested, may be denied under section 8(1)(j), under the following two circumstances –	+

-	a) Where the information requested is personal information and the nature of the information requested is such that it has apparently no relationship to any public activity or interest; or	+	A subtle point — Commission of Inquiry reports. Under Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, a government must lay the report before the Legislature within 6 months. If it fails to do so, the breach of privilege has already occurred — §8(1)(c) cannot then be used to shield the report from an RTI applicant.

-	b) Where the information requested is personal information, and the disclosure of the said information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.	+	==== 8(1)(d) — Commercial confidence ====

-	If the information is personal information, it must be seen whether the information came to the public authority as a consequence of a public activity. Generally, most of the information in public records arises from a public activity.	+	{{ :icons:grounds:d-commercial.svg?32 }}

		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a [[:explanations:third-party\|third party]], unless the [[:explanations:competent-authority\|competent authority]] is satisfied that larger [[:explanations:public-interest\|public interest]] warrants the disclosure.//
		+	</WRAP>

		+	Plain English. All four must be satisfied: (i) the data belongs to a third party; (ii) it is trade-secret / commercial-confidence / IP; (iii) disclosure would harm competitive position; (iv) no larger public interest overrides.

-	<WRAP group>	+	What is NOT commercial confidence. Tender bid particulars, project specifications, performance guarantees by a winning bidder to a public authority are not automatic trade secrets. Technical evaluation minutes post-award are disclosable — the evaluation is a public-authority act. See [[:pio-tender-contract-rti\|PIO Framework — tender and contract RTI]] and //Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC, 2015).
-	<WRAP half column>	+
-	Applying for a job, ration card or passport are examples of public activity. However, there may be some personal information which may be with public authorities which is not a consequence of a public activity, eg. Medical records, or transactions with a public sector bank. Similarly, a public authority may come into possession of some information during a raid or seizure which may have no relationship to any public activity.	+

-	Even if the information has arisen by a public activity, it could still be exempt if disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual.	+	Case law.

		+	* //M/s Carbon Resources v. Kerala SIC//, Kerala HC (2015) — commercial confidence needs demonstrable competitive harm, not a label.
		+	* //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — RBI's own regulatory records are disclosable; §8(1)(d) can't shield them.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:e-fiduciary.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information available to a person in his [[:explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|fiduciary relationship]], unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure.//
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
-	<WRAP half column>	+
-	<html>	+	Plain English. A fiduciary relationship requires choice + trust + benefit of the provider — lawyer / client, doctor / patient, banker / customer, trustee / beneficiary.
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<!-- wiki 300 bottom -->	+	What is NOT fiduciary.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px"	+	* Information given to fulfil a statutory requirement (income-tax return, passport application, job application) — no choice, no fiduciary.
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	* Employee service records held by the employer — regulatory, not fiduciary.
-	data-ad-slot="4562457588"></ins>	+	* Information the regulator holds about a regulated entity — not fiduciary.
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+	Case law.
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+	* //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — evaluated answer scripts are not fiduciary; scores are disclosable.
		+	* //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — the regulator-regulated relationship is not fiduciary.
		+	* //ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//, (2011) 8 SCC 781 — examiner identity and model answers are fiduciary.
		+
		+	Deep dive. [[:pio-section-8-1-e-fiduciary\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(e) Fiduciary relationship]].
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(f) — Foreign government confidence ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:f-foreign.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information received in confidence from foreign government.//
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. The only clause where a mere claim of "received in confidence" triggers exemption. Most information received from a foreign government is therefore unlikely to be given unless it has already been released into the public domain.
		+
		+	PIO takeaway. Record the foreign-government source and the confidentiality note. For post-release information, §8(1)(f) does not resurrect.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(g) — Life and safety ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:g-lifesafety.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.//
	</WRAP>		</WRAP>
-	Privacy is to do with matters within a home, a person’s body, sexual preferences etc. This is in line with Article 19 (2) which mentions placing restrictions on Article 19

-	(1) (a) in the interest of ‘decency or morality’. There is an additional view at this juncture.38 If, however, it is felt that the information is not the result of any public activity, or disclosing it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of an individual, before denying information it must be subjected to the acid test of the proviso: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.	+	Plain English. For whistleblowers and confidential informants in law-enforcement — not for routine examiner names, interviewer names, or remarks by superior officers.

-	The proviso is meant as a test which must be applied before denying information claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j). Public servants have been used to answering questions raised in Parliament and the Legislature. It is difficult for them to develop the attitude of answering demands for information from citizens. Hence, when they have a doubt, it is worthwhile for them to first consider if they would give this information to the elected representatives. They must first come to the subjective conclusion that they would not provide the information to MPs and MLAs, and record it when denying information to citizens. There is an additional view at this juncture	+	Common PIO error. Using §8(1)(g) to shield names of examiners / evaluators / selection-committee members. That is §8(1)(e) territory at best; §8(1)(g) requires a real and reasonable probability of threat to life.
-	Another perspective is that information is to be denied to citizens based on the presumption that disclosure would cause harm to some interest of an individual. If, however, the information can be given to legislature it means the likely harm is not very high since what is given to legislature will be in public domain. Hence, it is necessary that when information is denied based on the provision of Section 8 (1) (j), the person denying the information must give his subjective assessment that such information would be denied to Parliament or State legislature if sought. This must be recorded in the decision.	+

-	It is worth noting that in the Privacy bill 2014, it was proposed that Sensitive personal data should be defined as Personal data relating to: “(a) physical and mental health including medical history, (b) biometric, bodily or genetic information, (c) criminal convictions (d) password,	+	==== 8(1)(h) — Investigation and prosecution ====

-	(e) banking credit and financial data (f) narco-analysis or polygraph test data, (g) sexual orientation.” This is in line with Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.	+	{{ :icons:grounds:h-investigation.svg?32 }}

-	----	+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.//
		+	</WRAP>

		+	Plain English. Information can be refused only if disclosure would genuinely impede one of: ongoing investigation, apprehension of the accused, or ongoing prosecution.

-	**Section 9**	+	**Time-bound. §8(1)(h) does not mean "any case pending in court." Once the investigation report is submitted / closed, §8(1)(h) ceases to apply and fresh reasoning must be recorded for any continued exemption. //S. Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal// (Calcutta HC, 2018) and //S. Muthukumarasamy v. Commissioner, Labour Dept// (Madras HC, 2018) both enforce this**.
-	//Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State**.//	+
-	**	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	If an applicant asks copies of a book in a library, or a work of art, or a film, whose copyright vests with somebody, then it would not be given.	+	The mere fact that release may weaken the prosecution case is not a ground — that would be protecting untruths on the record.

-	However, by implication, if the copyright belongs to the State, it would have to be given under Right to Information. To obviate the problem of citizens asking for copies of priced publications of the State, some State rules have stated that for priced publications, the fee to be paid will be the sale price of the publication. However, no information can be denied on the ground that the copyright vests with the State.	+	==== 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:i-cabinet.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.//
		+
		+	//Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over://
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. This is a time-bounded exemption — not a permanent bar. Cabinet deliberations are protected during decision-making. Once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, the government must disclose the reasons and material.
		+
		+	Authority. //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — post-decisional disclosability of file-notings and cabinet deliberations.
		+
		+	Statutory reinforcement. §4(1)(c) — publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies. §4(1)(d) — provide reasons for administrative / quasi-judicial decisions. These duties ripen after the cabinet decision.
		+
		+	==== 8(1)(j) — Personal information [amended 2025] ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:j-privacy.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round alert 90%>
		+	DPDP Amendment — 14 November 2025. Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended §8(1)(j). The Act now reads:
		+
		+	>//Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.//
		+
		+	Two things have changed. The internal "public-interest override" clause and the "information which cannot be denied to Parliament" proviso are both removed. The public-interest override now operates solely through §8(2).
		+
		+	Full legal analysis: [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]]. Context: [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|Blog — DPDP Rules 2025 RTI amendment]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. Two tests for a §8(1)(j) refusal:
		+
		+	- Is the information personal (attributes of an individual, not an institution)?
		+	- Does disclosure cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, with no relationship to public activity?
		+
		+	If the information is already in the public domain, or flows from a public activity (applying for a job, ration card, passport, tender), §8(1)(j) typically fails.
		+
		+	Case law.
		+
		+	* //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — service records of public servants generally fall within §8(1)(j); salary / rank data is open.
		+	* //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UoI//, (2017) 10 SCC 1 — privacy as fundamental right; proportionality governs any intrusion.
		+	* //R.K. Jain v. UoI//, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — subjective evaluation (ACR) is personal but subject to §8(2) public interest.
		+	* //Thalappalam Cooperative Bank// (as applied) — member-level financial data carries a privacy interest even in a public authority.
		+
		+	PIO takeaway. Post-2025, record the privacy analysis inside §8(1)(j), then separately record any §8(2) override analysis. The two are now textually and analytically distinct.
		+
		+	===== Also deniable — §9, §11, §24 =====
		+
		+	==== §9 — Third-party copyright ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:s9-copyright.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	<WRAP center round box 90%>
		+	Statutory text. //Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.//
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	Plain English. If the copyright belongs to someone other than the State — a publisher, film-maker, artist — the public authority cannot hand out copies.
		+
		+	If the copyright belongs to the State, the information must be disclosed. Some state rules specify that for priced publications, the RTI fee equals the sale price — but no State-copyrighted material can be refused on copyright grounds.
		+
		+	See [[:act:section-9\|Section 9 — Copyright]].
		+
		+	==== §11 — Third-party information ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:s11-thirdparty.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	§11 is procedural, not a standalone ground. When requested information relates to a third party (a vendor, a complainant, another citizen), the PIO must:
		+
		+	- Within 5 days of receipt, give written notice to the third party.
		+	- The third party has 10 days to represent.
		+	- The PIO then decides, within 40 days total, recording reasoning.
		+
		+	A §11 notice skipped is a procedural defect — the PIO order is fragile on appeal. Skipping §11 is one of the top reasons FAA orders are set aside.
		+
		+	Authority. //C. Muniyappan v. State of Tamil Nadu// (Madras HC, 2013); //Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. WBIC// (Calcutta HC, 2016).
		+
		+	Deep dive: [[:act:section-11\|Section 11 — Third-party information]] and [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing\|FAA framework — privacy vs public interest balancing]].
		+
		+	==== §24 — Intelligence and security agencies ====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:s24-agencies.svg?32 }}
		+
		+	Section 24(1) exempts the intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule — for example: IB, RAW, CBI, Directorate of Enforcement, NCB, and specified state agencies.
		+
		+	Critical carve-outs.
		+
		+	* §24(1) proviso — allegations of corruption or human-rights violation are disclosable, even for Schedule-II agencies.
		+	* §24(2) proviso — for human-rights requests, the request goes through the CIC (central) or SIC (state); response time 45 days.
		+
		+	See [[:act:section-24\|Section 24 — Intelligence and security]].
		+
		+	===== §8(2) — the public-interest override =====
		+
		+	Section 8(2) is the master override. Even when a §8(1) exemption applies, disclosure may be ordered if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest.
		+
		+	Who applies §8(2)?
		+
		+	* PIO at first instance — must record the balancing reasoning when applying or rejecting the override.
		+	* FAA on First Appeal — reviews the PIO's balancing and may substitute its own.
		+	* SIC / CIC on Second Appeal — the final balancing forum.
		+	* High Court on writ — reviews on legal principle.
		+
		+	Record-keeping requirement. "Public interest not satisfied" without analysis is an appealable defect. The officer must lay out the benefit of disclosure, the harm avoided, and why one outweighs the other.
		+
		+	Deep dive: [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing\|FAA framework — privacy vs public interest]] and [[:faa-section-19-8-powers\|§19(8) — FAA's disclosure power]].
		+
		+	===== §10 — severability =====
		+
		+	Section 10 requires the PIO to sever exempt content from non-exempt content. A blanket refusal of an entire document — when only a portion is exempt — is itself a §10 violation.
		+
		+	Example. An inspection report contains (a) procedural sections, (b) an identified whistleblower's name. The PIO must sever (b) under §8(1)(g) and release (a) with the name redacted.
		+
		+	See [[:act:section-10\|Section 10 — Severability]] and //Principal, GMC Thiruvananthapuram v. KIC// (Kerala HC, 2019) — severability is favoured over blanket denial.
		+
		+	===== Non-grounds — what cannot refuse an RTI =====
		+
		+	A PIO cannot refuse on any of these grounds, even if cited:
		+
		+	* "Confidential" / "Secret" stamp on the file. §8(1)(a) requires specific harm-test.
		+	* "Matter is sub-judice." §8(1)(b) requires an express court order.
		+	* "Why" questions. This is a drafting issue, not a refusal ground. The PIO has a §5(3) duty to help reframe. See [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]].
		+	* "No reason given by the applicant." §6(2) explicitly bars asking for reasons.
		+	* "Voluminous request." §7(9) allows offering inspection + selective copies, not blanket refusal.
		+	* "Information is old." If records exist, they must be supplied. The Act sets no age limit.
		+	* "Information lies with another department." §6(3) requires the PIO to transfer within 5 days.
		+	* "Applicant's motive is malafide." §6(2) bars inquiry into motive.
		+	* "Larger public interest not served." This cannot refuse disclosure — §8(2) is an override to disclose, not a freestanding exemption.
		+
		+	Common PIO errors: [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]. Drafting fixes if your RTI was refused: [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|drafting fix-it guide]].
		+
		+	===== Got refused? The 30-day appeal path =====
		+
		+	{{ :icons:grounds:appeal-path.svg?1000 \|The RTI appeal path }}
		+
		+	- First Appeal under §19(1) — file within 30 days of receipt of refusal (or of expiry of the 30-day reply window). Addressed to the FAA within the same public authority. FAA decides in 30 days, extendable by 15 days with reasons — max 45 days. See [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal timelines]] and [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist\|FAA appellate-review checklist]].
		+	- Second Appeal under §19(3) — file within 90 days of the FAA's decision (or of expiry of the FAA's time). Addressed to the SIC (state records) or CIC (central records). Second Appeals may be argued in person.
		+	- Writ petition — under Articles 226 (HC) or 32 (SC) for pure questions of law where the Commission has made a legal error or failed to follow precedent.
		+	- Section 20 penalty — ask the Commission in the second appeal to impose up to Rs. 25,000 on the PIO who refused without valid ground, delayed, or gave false / misleading information. Penalty is personal to the officer.
		+
		+	<WRAP center round help 95%>
		+	Ready to file your appeal?
		+
		+	* Use the [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist\|FAA appellate-review checklist]] to structure your grounds.
		+	* See [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal timelines]] for the exact window and format.
		+	* If your original RTI was weak, start with the [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|drafting fix-it guide]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked =====
		+
		+	Q1. How many grounds are there in Section 8(1)? \\ Exactly ten — clauses (a) through (j). Any denial citing a ground outside these ten is invalid.
		+
		+	Q2. Is "sub-judice" a valid ground to refuse? \\ No. §8(1)(b) requires an express court order forbidding publication. Mere pendency is not enough.
		+
		+	Q3. Can a PIO refuse by citing "Confidential" on the file? \\ No. An internal classification is not itself a §8(1)(a) ground. The PIO must demonstrate specific harm.
		+
		+	Q4. What changed in §8(1)(j) on 14 November 2025? \\ The internal public-interest override and the Parliament proviso were removed by §44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023. Public-interest balancing now operates only via §8(2). See [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]].
		+
		+	Q5. Can I get copies of file-notings? \\ Yes. Once the decision is taken and the matter is complete, §8(1)(i) does not bar file-notings. The post-decisional disclosure principle in //R.K. Jain v. UoI// (2013) 14 SCC 794 applies.
		+
		+	Q6. Can the PIO ask me why I want the information? \\ No — §6(2) expressly bars this, except for the purposes of contacting the applicant.
		+
		+	Q7. If my request is voluminous, can the PIO refuse? \\ No. §7(9) allows the PIO to change the form — typically by offering inspection and copies of specified pages — but not to refuse outright.
		+
		+	Q8. Can I get the audit / inspection report of a regulated entity? \\ Yes — //RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136 confirmed it, and subsequent HC rulings (//Indian Bank// at Madras, //KSEB// at Kerala) apply it.
		+
		+	Q9. What is Section 24 — does it cover all police / security agencies? \\ No. Only those listed in the Second Schedule. And even then, corruption and human-rights-violation allegations are disclosable under the proviso.
		+
		+	Q10. What's the maximum penalty on a PIO for wrongful refusal? \\ Rs. 25,000 under §20(1), imposed personally on the defaulting officer. Repeated defaults can attract departmental action.
		+
		+	===== Related reading =====
		+
		+	==== The Act — section pages ====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:act:section-7\|§7 — Reply deadline and form]]
		+	* [[:act:section-8\|§8 — Exemption from disclosure]]
		+	* [[:act:section-9\|§9 — Copyright]]
		+	* [[:act:section-10\|§10 — Severability]]
		+	* [[:act:section-11\|§11 — Third-party information]]
		+	* [[:act:section-19\|§19 — Appeals]]
		+	* [[:act:section-20\|§20 — Penalties]]
		+	* [[:act:section-24\|§24 — Intelligence and security]]
		+
		+	==== PIO / FAA frameworks ====
		+
		+	* [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base\|PIO / FAA knowledge base]]
		+	* [[:pio-rti-reply-guide\|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-j-framework\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-8-1-e-fiduciary\|PIO Framework — §8(1)(e) Fiduciary]]
		+	* [[:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form\|PIO Framework — §7(9) alternative form]]
		+	* [[:pio-deemed-refusal-section-7-2\|PIO Framework — deemed refusal §7(2)]]
		+	* [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist\|FAA appellate-review checklist]]
		+	* [[:faa-first-appeal-timelines\|First Appeal timelines]]
		+	* [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing\|FAA — privacy vs public interest]]
		+	* [[:faa-section-19-8-powers\|FAA — §19(8) disclosure powers]]
		+
		+	==== Case-law anchors ====
		+
		+	* [[:bombay-hc-rti-rulings\|Bombay HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:madras-hc-rti-rulings\|Madras HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:kerala-hc-rti-rulings\|Kerala HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:karnataka-hc-rti-rulings\|Karnataka HC RTI rulings]]
		+	* [[:calcutta-hc-rti-rulings\|Calcutta HC RTI rulings]]
		+
		+	==== For applicants ====
		+
		+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to file RTI online — 2026 guide]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected — drafting fix-it guide]]
		+	* [[:faq\|RTI FAQ — 25 most-asked questions]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	* Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended 2019, 2023)
		+	* Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3) amending RTI §8(1)(j) (effective 14 November 2025)
		+	* Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 — §3(4)
		+	* //S.P. Gupta v. Union of India//, AIR 1982 SC 149
		+	* //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497
		+	* //ICAI v. Shaunak Satya//, (2011) 8 SCC 781
		+	* //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212
		+	* //Namit Sharma v. Union of India//, (2013) 1 SCC 745
		+	* //R.K. Jain v. Union of India//, (2013) 14 SCC 794
		+	* //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82
		+	* //RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 5 SCC 136
		+	* //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1

	----		----

		+	//Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.//
		+
		+	{{tag>rejection exemption act section-8 section-9 section-11 section-24 dpdp pio-faa explainer}}

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#2}}
-	<html>
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"
-	style="display:block"
-	data-ad-format="fluid"
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>
-	<script>
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});
-	</script>
-	</html>
-	~~socialite~~
-	[<>]

How to Use RTI to Solve Personal Problems

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 09:02:02 +0000

2026/05/03 12:15	current
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti for personal problems,how to use rti for personal problems,rti application sample,rti for passport delay,rti for pension issue,rti for police complaint,rti examples india,how to solve problems using rti,rti sample format,rti application format)&metatag-description=(How to Use RTI to Solve Personal Problems - verified citizen guide on RTI Wiki, India's independent Right to Information reference. Updated 2026 with latest.)}}
	+
	+
	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner\|Page>snippets dpdp banner}}
	+
	+
	+
	+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
	+	Need help drafting this RTI? Use our free [[:tools:rti-assistant\|RTI Assistant]] — describe your problem, get a ready-to-file Section 6(1) application with your name and address pre-filled. Also handles First Appeal and Second Appeal to the CIC/SIC.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	====== How to Use RTI to Solve Personal Problems ======
	+	<WRAP round important>
	+	This page is now the child article under [[:rti-for-daily-life\|Pillar 1 — RTI for Daily Life Problems]]. It contains five real-life case templates; the pillar hub is the canonical entry point for daily-life RTIs. If you're browsing the site for the first time, start at the pillar.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+
	+	{{ :social:auto:rti-for-personal-problems.png?direct&1200 \|rti-for-personal-problems — RTI Wiki}}
	+
	+	<WRAP info>
	+	In one line. The Right to Information Act, 2005 lets any citizen force a public authority to put its records, timelines, and responsible officer on paper within 30 days. This page covers how to use RTI for personal problems in five common cases: passport delay, pension non-receipt, FIR not registered, property mutation stuck, and scholarship not credited.
	+
	+	What that means in practice.
	+	* Each case below carries a ready-to-file RTI application you can copy and adapt.
	+	* Expected timeline, what to do if no reply, and the appeal escalation path are set out in plain language.
	+	* The universal template at the bottom works for any grievance not covered here.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<div didyouknow>
	+	Did you know? A well-drafted RTI often resolves a stuck file faster than the 30-day reply deadline itself. Officers prefer to clear the file rather than put refusal in writing. That is the quiet power of a written, time-bound question.
	+	</div>
	+
	+	===== Quick Answer: RTI for Personal Problems =====
	+
	+	* Passport stuck? RTI to RPO asking for movement register, dispatch date, and file noting.
	+	* Pension not paid? RTI to pension-sanctioning authority for date of receipt, processing status, LPC-cum-data sheet.
	+	* Police refused FIR? RTI to SP for GD entry, complaint status, action taken.
	+	* Mutation delayed? RTI to Tehsildar for mutation application receipt date, objections, dispatch to Patwari.
	+	* Scholarship stuck? RTI to department/NSP authority for sanction, bank file, UTR reference.
	+	* Fee — Rs 10 (Central) / Rs 20 (most States). Reply in 30 days.
	+
	+	===== Which RTI for Which Problem? =====
	+
	+	^ Your grievance ^ File RTI to ^ Ask for ^
	+	\| Passport delay \| Regional Passport Office \| File movement, police-verification status, reasons for pendency \|
	+	\| Pension not received \| Pay & Accounts Office / pension-sanctioning authority \| LPC-cum-data sheet, processing timeline, authority notification \|
	+	\| FIR refused \| District SP / Commissioner of Police \| GD entry, complaint file, reasons for not registering \|
	+	\| Mutation stuck \| Tehsildar / Revenue office \| Application receipt, objections, patwari notings \|
	+	\| Scholarship not credited \| Scholarship-sanctioning department \| Sanction order, bank advice, UTR, reasons for delay \|
	+	\| Municipal building plan \| Municipal Corporation \| Technical scrutiny, NOCs, sanction status \|
	+	\| ITR refund not issued \| CBDT / Assessing Officer \| Refund processing file, TRP notings, cheque/ECS dispatch date \|
	+	\| Ration card not issued \| Food & Civil Supplies \| Application receipt, verification status, priority list \|
	+
	+	===== Your problem may be one RTI away from a solution =====
	+
	+	Your passport is stuck for three months. Status page says "Under Review". The call centre keeps repeating the same script. Your pension has not arrived for the fourth month in a row. The police station refused to register an FIR. The Tehsildar has held your mutation file since April. The state scholarship is "approved" but not in your bank.
	+
	+	You do not need a lawyer for any of this. You need one sheet of paper and ten rupees. You need the Right to Information Act, 2005.
	+
	+	This guide shows how to use RTI for personal problems in five real-life situations. Each case comes with a ready-to-copy RTI application, an expected timeline, and the exact next step if the reply does not arrive.
	+
	+	===== What is RTI, in four lines =====
	+
	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005 gives every citizen of India the right to ask a public authority for records, documents, file notings, and reasons for decisions. The public authority must reply within 30 days. The fee is Rs. 10 for central government offices. Refusal without a valid ground attracts a penalty on the officer.
	+
	+	That is it. No lawyer, no court, no theatrics.
	+
	+	===== How RTI solves real personal problems =====
	+
	+	RTI works for personal grievances for three practical reasons.
	+
	+	1. It forces accountability. An RTI puts the officer's name next to the file. Once asked in writing, no officer wants to appear as the reason for the delay in a written reply.
	+
	+	2. It creates a permanent written record. The reply (or the silence) becomes proof. That proof feeds the First Appeal, the Second Appeal before the Information Commission, and, in some cases, a writ petition in the High Court.
	+
	+	3. It is legally binding. Under Section 7, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is required to reply in 30 days. Section 20 empowers the Information Commission to impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day of delay on the officer, up to Rs. 25,000.
	+
	+	Most personal grievances settle before the 30-day mark simply because the RTI arrived. The file moves.
	+
	+	===== Case 1: Passport stuck for months =====
	+
	+	==== The problem ====
	+
	+	You applied for a passport or renewal. Police verification is pending, or the file is "Under Review" with no movement for 60 to 90 days. The PSK helpline and the MEA tracker give the same non-answer.
	+
	+	==== Why RTI works here ====
	+
	+	The Regional Passport Office (RPO) is a public authority under the Ministry of External Affairs. Police verification is done by the local police, also a public authority. Both are bound by the 30-day RTI reply deadline. A pointed RTI to the RPO normally traces the exact file movement and identifies the officer holding it.
	+
	+	==== Ready-to-file RTI application ====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	Central Public Information Officer
	+	Regional Passport Office, [city]
	+	[address]
	+
	+	Subject: Request for information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	Kindly provide the following information in respect of passport application File No. [your file number] dated [date of application] in the name of [applicant name]:
	+
	+	1. Date on which the police verification request was forwarded to the local police, with the name and designation of the forwarding officer.
	+	2. Date on which the police verification report was received by the Regional Passport Office, or, if not yet received, the current status.
	+	3. Copy of the police verification report, if received.
	+	4. Current stage of the application file, with the name and designation of the officer currently holding the file.
	+	5. Expected date of printing and despatch of the passport.
	+	6. Standard service-level timeline for passport issuance after police verification is cleared.
	+
	+	Time period covered: from [date of application] to the date of this request.
	+
	+	I am a citizen of India. The information is sought for personal use.
	+
	+	A fee of Rs. 10/- is enclosed by way of Indian Postal Order No. [number] dated [date], drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, Regional Passport Office, [city].
	+
	+	If any part of the information sought lies with another public authority, kindly transfer the application under Section 6(3) of the Act within five days and inform me.
	+
	+	Name: [your full name]
	+	Address: [your postal address]
	+	Mobile: [your mobile]
	+	Email: [your email]
	+
	+	Date:
	+	Signature:
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Expected timeline ====
	+
	+	* Day 0 — File the RTI at the RPO window or through [[rtionline-gov-in\|rtionline.gov.in]].
	+	* Day 5 — Transferred to the correct CPIO if misdirected, under Section 6(3).
	+	* Within 30 days — Written reply with the file stage and officer's name.
	+	* Practical experience — Most passport files move within 7 to 14 days of RTI filing, as the RPO resolves the query rather than write a detailed reply about the delay.
	+
	+	==== What to do if no reply ====
	+
	+	If no reply arrives by the 30th day, file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the RPO within 30 days of the deemed refusal. If the FAA still does not act, a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) lies within 90 days. See the step-by-step [[guide:applicant:first-appeal\|First Appeal guide]] and [[guide:applicant:second-appeal\|Second Appeal guide]].
	+
	+	===== Case 2: Pension not received =====
	+
	+	==== The problem ====
	+
	+	You retired from a central or state government post. Pension was sanctioned but has not been credited for one or more months. The Accountant General's office blames the bank. The bank blames the department. You are in the middle.
	+
	+	==== Why RTI works here ====
	+
	+	Pension is sanctioned through a Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued by the Accountant General (AG) office or the CPAO (Central Pension Accounting Office) and disbursed by a designated bank branch (Pension Disbursing Authority, PDA). All three are public authorities under the RTI Act.
	+
	+	==== Ready-to-file RTI application ====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	Central Public Information Officer
	+	Office of the Accountant General / CPAO / [department that sanctioned the pension]
	+	[address]
	+
	+	Subject: Request for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 — non-receipt of pension
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	Kindly provide the following information in respect of pensioner [full name], PPO No. [number], employee ID [number], retired on [date] from [post/department]:
	+
	+	1. Date on which the Pension Payment Order was issued.
	+	2. Date on which the PPO was communicated to the pension disbursing bank branch, with copy of the forwarding letter.
	+	3. Name, branch code, and IFSC of the pension disbursing bank on record.
	+	4. Whether any pension instalment has been held back, and if so, the exact reason in writing with reference to the governing rule.
	+	5. Current outstanding pension amount and the scheduled date of credit.
	+	6. Name and designation of the officer presently responsible for this file.
	+
	+	Time period covered: from [date of retirement] to the date of this request.
	+
	+	I am a citizen of India. The information is requested for personal use.
	+
	+	A fee of Rs. 10/- is enclosed by way of Indian Postal Order No. [number] dated [date].
	+
	+	If any part of the information lies with another public authority, please transfer the request under Section 6(3) within five days and inform me.
	+
	+	Name: [your name]
	+	Address: [your address]
	+	Contact: [mobile, email]
	+
	+	Date:
	+	Signature:
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Expected timeline ====
	+
	+	* Day 0 — File at AG office / CPAO / bank PIO window.
	+	* Within 30 days — Written reply with PPO status and release date.
	+	* Practical experience — Most pension credits reach the bank within two weeks of the RTI, because the AG or CPAO does not want to put a delay reason in writing.
	+
	+	==== What to do if no reply ====
	+
	+	File a First Appeal within 30 days. In parallel, send a copy of the unanswered RTI to the concerned Pay and Accounts Office and to the CPENGRAMS portal (pgportal.gov.in). Two channels open in parallel are faster than one.
	+
	+	===== Case 3: Police refuses to register an FIR =====
	+
	+	==== The problem ====
	+
	+	You went to the police station with a written complaint. The duty officer took the complaint but did not register an FIR. No copy of the entry was given. The Daily Diary or Rojnamcha entry is not visible.
	+
	+	==== Why RTI works here ====
	+
	+	Every police station is a public authority under the RTI Act. The Daily Diary, General Diary (GD), and station register are public records (subject only to exemption under Sections 8 and 24 where they strictly apply to the specified intelligence and security organisations, which most police stations are not). An RTI forces the station to confirm whether the complaint was entered and what action was taken.
	+
	+	==== Ready-to-file RTI application ====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	Central Public Information Officer
	+	Police Station [name]
	+	[address]
	+
	+	Subject: Request for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 — complaint dated [date]
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	Kindly provide the following information in respect of my written complaint dated [date], submitted in person at Police Station [name] and acknowledged by the duty officer at [time] on [date]:
	+
	+	1. Daily Diary (Rojnamcha / GD) entry number and date recorded for the complaint.
	+	2. Certified copy of the Daily Diary / GD entry.
	+	3. Whether an FIR has been registered on the complaint. If yes, the FIR number, section, and date. If no, the reason recorded in writing with reference to the governing rule or judgment.
	+	4. Name and designation of the officer in charge of the investigation, if initiated.
	+	5. Action taken on the complaint as of the date of this reply.
	+	6. Whether the complainant was informed of the action, and if so, the mode and date.
	+
	+	I am a citizen of India. The information is sought for personal use and is not exempt under Section 8 of the Act.
	+
	+	A fee of Rs. 10/- is enclosed by way of Indian Postal Order No. [number] dated [date], drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, Police Department, [state].
	+
	+	If any part of the information lies with another public authority, kindly transfer the request under Section 6(3) within five days.
	+
	+	Name: [your name]
	+	Address: [your address]
	+	Contact: [mobile, email]
	+
	+	Date:
	+	Signature:
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Expected timeline ====
	+
	+	* Day 0 — File at the station SHO or the circle DCP / SP office.
	+	* Within 30 days — Written reply with the GD entry and action taken.
	+	* Parallel channel — Under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 154(3) CrPC), if the officer in charge refuses to register a cognisable FIR, a written complaint can be sent to the Superintendent of Police. The RTI is a complement, not a replacement.
	+
	+	==== What to do if no reply ====
	+
	+	First Appeal within 30 days to the Appellate Authority at the district or range level. If still no result, Second Appeal to the State Information Commission. In addition, a private complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS (earlier Section 200 CrPC) can be filed before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate to direct registration of FIR.
	+
	+	===== Case 4: Property mutation stuck =====
	+
	+	==== The problem ====
	+
	+	You bought a plot or flat six months ago. The sale deed is registered. The mutation application is lying at the Tehsildar, SDM, or Sub-Registrar's office. The revenue record still shows the earlier owner. Every follow-up is met with "coming soon".
	+
	+	==== Why RTI works here ====
	+
	+	Mutation is the administrative act of updating the revenue record (jamabandi, khata, khatauni, khasra) to reflect a new owner after registration of a sale deed. It is done by the Tehsildar or SDM under the state land revenue code. The Revenue Department is a public authority under RTI. Most states have a statutory time limit (often 45 to 90 days) for mutation disposal.
	+
	+	==== Ready-to-file RTI application ====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	Central Public Information Officer
	+	Office of the Tehsildar / SDM, [tehsil name]
	+	District: [district]
	+	[address]
	+
	+	Subject: Request for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 — mutation application
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	Kindly provide the following information in respect of Mutation Application No. [number] dated [date] filed by [applicant name] in respect of property at [address / khasra number]:
	+
	+	1. Date of receipt of the mutation application at this office.
	+	2. Current stage of the application in the file movement register.
	+	3. Date on which the public notice of mutation was published or affixed, with details of the notice board.
	+	4. Whether any objection has been received, and if so, the name of the objector and the ground of objection.
	+	5. Name and designation of the officer currently responsible for disposal of the application.
	+	6. Statutory timeline for mutation disposal under the [state name] Land Revenue Code or allied rules.
	+	7. Expected date of final disposal.
	+
	+	I am a citizen of India. The information is requested for personal use.
	+
	+	A fee of Rs. 10/- is enclosed by way of Indian Postal Order No. [number] dated [date], drawn in favour of [state rule — commonly the DDO of the Tehsil office].
	+
	+	If any part of the information lies with another public authority, please transfer the application under Section 6(3) within five days.
	+
	+	Name: [your name]
	+	Address: [your address]
	+	Contact: [mobile, email]
	+
	+	Date:
	+	Signature:
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Expected timeline ====
	+
	+	* Day 0 — File at the Tehsil office window or the district online RTI portal.
	+	* Within 30 days — Written reply confirming stage, objections, and expected disposal date.
	+	* Practical experience — Once the officer's name is on paper, the mutation almost always moves within two to four weeks of filing. Pending objections, if any, get named in the reply.
	+
	+	==== What to do if no reply ====
	+
	+	First Appeal to the SDM or the Collector as prescribed under state rules. If not resolved, Second Appeal to the State Information Commission. In parallel, a representation to the District Collector cross-referencing the unanswered RTI usually triggers disposal.
	+
	+	===== Case 5: Scholarship sanctioned but not credited =====
	+
	+	==== The problem ====
	+
	+	Your state or central scholarship has been "approved" on the National Scholarship Portal or the state portal. Months pass. The amount is not in the bank. The portal shows "Payment under process".
	+
	+	==== Why RTI works here ====
	+
	+	Scholarships are disbursed by the state Social Welfare Department, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, or the Ministry of Minority Affairs depending on the scheme. Disbursal is through DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer). Each stage is a public authority record.
	+
	+	==== Ready-to-file RTI application ====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	Central Public Information Officer
	+	[Scheme name, for example: National Scholarship Portal / State Social Welfare Department]
	+	[address]
	+
	+	Subject: Request for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 — delayed scholarship credit
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	Kindly provide the following information in respect of scholarship application ID [number] under the [scheme name] scheme for academic year [year], filed by [applicant name]:
	+
	+	1. Date on which the application was sanctioned by the competent authority.
	+	2. Date on which the sanctioned amount was released for DBT transfer.
	+	3. Bank account number and IFSC currently on record for the beneficiary.
	+	4. If the DBT attempt failed, the date and reason returned by the NPCI / bank.
	+	5. Name and designation of the officer presently responsible for the case.
	+	6. Expected date of credit and the step required from the beneficiary, if any, to unblock the payment.
	+
	+	I am a citizen of India. The information is requested for personal use.
	+
	+	A fee of Rs. 10/- is enclosed by way of [Indian Postal Order / Court Fee Stamp as per state] No. [number] dated [date].
	+
	+	If any part of the information lies with another public authority, please transfer the request under Section 6(3) within five days.
	+
	+	Name: [your name]
	+	Address: [your address]
	+	Contact: [mobile, email]
	+
	+	Date:
	+	Signature:
	+	</code>
	+
	+	==== Expected timeline ====
	+
	+	* Day 0 — File at the department window or through the Union RTI online portal.
	+	* Within 30 days — Written reply with sanction date, DBT status, and expected credit date.
	+	* Practical experience — Most stuck DBTs are released inside 10 working days of the RTI, because the department prefers to push the payment rather than put the delay reason on paper.
	+
	+	==== What to do if no reply ====
	+
	+	First Appeal within 30 days. The scholarship grievance module on the scheme portal is a parallel channel. The RTI reply, once received, is usable in both.
	+
	+	===== A universal RTI template that works for any grievance =====
	+
	+	Use this template for any personal grievance where a specific record or file stage is missing. Replace the placeholders in square brackets.
	+
	+	<code>
	+	To,
	+	Central Public Information Officer
	+	[Name and address of the department]
	+
	+	Subject: Request for information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
	+
	+	Sir/Madam,
	+
	+	Kindly provide the following information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005:
	+
	+	1. [Ask about a specific record — for example: date of receipt of my application dated ...]
	+	2. [Ask about the file stage — for example: current stage in the file movement register]
	+	3. [Ask about an officer — for example: name and designation of the officer currently holding the file]
	+	4. [Ask about the timeline — for example: statutory timeline for disposal under ... rule]
	+	5. [Ask for a document — for example: certified copy of the order sheet / file noting]
	+	6. [Ask about communication — for example: letters sent to me and the dates thereof]
	+
	+	Time period covered: from [start date] to the date of this request.
	+
	+	I am a citizen of India. The information is requested for personal use.
	+
	+	A fee of Rs. 10/- is enclosed by way of Indian Postal Order No. [number] dated [date].
	+
	+	If any part of the information lies with another public authority, please transfer the request under Section 6(3) of the Act within five days and inform me.
	+
	+	Name: [your full name]
	+	Address: [your postal address]
	+	Contact: [mobile, email]
	+
	+	Date:
	+	Signature:
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Common mistakes that sink RTI applications =====
	+
	+	<WRAP alert>
	+	Do not do these. Most RTI rejections flow from avoidable drafting errors.
	+	* Asking "why". The RTI Act covers information that exists in records, not reasons or opinions. Ask for the file noting or the order sheet, not for reasons.
	+	* Asking a question instead of seeking a record. "Why is my passport delayed?" is not information. "Copy of the police verification report and the current file stage" is information.
	+	* Mixing subjects in one application. One application, one department, one subject. Mixed applications invite a partial reply or a transfer delay.
	+	* Leaving out dates and reference numbers. Without a file number and a date range, the PIO cannot trace your case and will reply in generalities.
	+	* Forgetting the Rs. 10 fee. No fee means the application is not an RTI at all.
	+	* Skipping the citizen-of-India declaration. The Act protects information for citizens. The line must be present.
	+	* Writing "kindly provide under Section 4". Section 4 is the proactive disclosure duty of the authority. Section 6 is the applicant's route.
	+	* Rude or argumentative drafting. Polite, specific, numbered asks work. Tirades slow replies.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Infographic — the RTI problem-solving flow =====
	+
	+	<code>
	+	Problem
	+	↓
	+	Draft RTI (one subject, specific records, Rs. 10 fee)
	+	↓
	+	File at CPIO window / rtionline.gov.in / speed post
	+	↓
	+	30 days — PIO reply
	+	↓
	+	Satisfactory reply → Resolution
	+	↓
	+	Unsatisfactory / no reply → First Appeal (Section 19(1))
	+	↓
	+	Still no action → Second Appeal (CIC / SIC, Section 19(3))
	+	↓
	+	Commission order + penalty on officer (Section 20)
	+	↓
	+	Resolution
	+	</code>
	+
	+	===== Infographic — the RTI timeline =====
	+
	+	^ Day ^ Event ^ Statutory basis ^
	+	\| Day 0 \| RTI filed with Rs. 10 fee \| Section 6 \|
	+	\| Day 5 \| Transfer to correct PIO if misdirected \| Section 6(3) \|
	+	\| Day 30 \| PIO must reply with information, denial ground, or fee demand \| Section 7(1) \|
	+	\| Day 31 onwards \| Silence becomes deemed refusal \| Section 7(2) \|
	+	\| Within Day 60 \| First Appeal to the FAA \| Section 19(1) \|
	+	\| Within Day 90 after FAA order (or 30 days of no FAA reply) \| Second Appeal to the Information Commission \| Section 19(3) \|
	+	\| Commission hearing \| Order + penalty up to Rs. 25,000 on PIO for mala fide delay \| Section 20 \|
	+
	+	===== Infographic — do's and don'ts =====
	+
	+	<WRAP group>
	+	<WRAP half column>
	+	Do
	+	* Name the record or document.
	+	* Give the exact date or reference number.
	+	* Keep one subject per application.
	+	* Enclose Rs. 10 by IPO, court fee stamp, or DD.
	+	* Declare you are a citizen of India.
	+	* Ask for the officer's name and the file stage.
	+	* Be polite and numbered.
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	<WRAP half column>
	+	Don't
	+	* Ask "why" or "when will you do".
	+	* Seek opinions, predictions, or advice.
	+	* Mix three grievances into one form.
	+	* Skip the fee.
	+	* Attach long narratives.
	+	* Insult the officer.
	+	* Forget your contact details.
	+	</WRAP>
	+	</WRAP>
	+
	+	===== Before you file — a quick sanity check =====
	+
	+	* You have the right department. An RTI sent to the wrong authority loses 5 days to transfer. Confirm from the public-authority list or the department's contact page.
	+	* You have the right PIO. Most departments publish the CPIO name on their website. Section 5 requires it.
	+	* You have Rs. 10 ready. Indian Postal Order is the cleanest form. For central government RTIs online, the payment is via [[rtionline-gov-in\|rtionline.gov.in]] and the fee is built in.
	+	* You have one subject. Personal grievance today, policy question another day.
	+	* You have a file number or a date range. No pointer means a general reply.
	+
	+	===== What if the RTI is rejected =====
	+
	+	Some grounds of refusal (Section 8) are valid. Most are not. A quick pointer table:
	+
	+	^ Ground cited ^ Usually valid? ^ How to push back ^
	+	\| Section 8(1)(h) — investigation ongoing \| Only if the investigation is live and named \| Ask for a specific stage description; see [[explanations:pendency-of-investigation]]. \|
	+	\| Section 8(1)(j) — personal information \| Narrower after the DPDP 2025 substitution; public-interest override still lies \| See [[explanations:privacy]] and [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025]]. \|
	+	\| Section 8(1)(e) — fiduciary \| Narrowly construed; see CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) \| Cite the judgment and reframe the request around the document. \|
	+	\| "Not centrally maintained" \| Not a valid ground under the Act \| Insist under Section 7(9). \|
	+	\| Fee demand beyond Rs. 10 \| Copy charges (Rs. 2 per page) are valid; no separate search fee \| Pay copy charge only after sighting the fee-demand order. \|
	+
	+	For a full map, see [[why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI applications get rejected, and how to avoid it]] and [[explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection under Section 8]].
	+
	+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
	+
	+	==== Can RTI really solve personal problems? ====
	+
	+	Yes. Most personal-administrative grievances — stuck files, delayed sanctions, pending verifications — move the moment an RTI is filed, because the officer prefers to clear the file rather than write a reply explaining the delay. It does not replace a lawsuit, but for administrative inaction, it is the fastest and cheapest tool in a citizen's hand.
	+
	+	==== How long does an RTI take in India? ====
	+
	+	The statutory reply time is 30 days from the date the CPIO receives the application. If the matter concerns life or liberty, the time is 48 hours. If the application is misdirected, 5 extra days are allowed for transfer under Section 6(3). See [[act#section-7disposal-of-request]].
	+
	+	==== What if no reply is received in 30 days? ====
	+
	+	Silence becomes a deemed refusal. File a First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority of the department under Section 19(1) within 30 days. If the FAA does not respond in 30 days (45 in special cases), file a Second Appeal before the Central or State Information Commission under Section 19(3) within 90 days.
	+
	+	==== Can I file an RTI against the police? ====
	+
	+	Yes. Every police station and every rank above it is a public authority under the RTI Act. The only exclusions under Section 24 are specified intelligence and security agencies listed in the Second Schedule. A local police station is not excluded.
	+
	+	==== Is RTI free? ====
	+
	+	The application fee is Rs. 10 for central government public authorities. States vary from Rs. 10 to Rs. 50. Persons below the poverty line are exempt under Section 7(5). Copy charges are Rs. 2 per page in the standard fee schedule.
	+
	+	==== Which department should I send my RTI to? ====
	+
	+	Send it to the public authority that holds the record. If it has the same subject-matter across two offices (say, the Tehsil and the Collector), send it to the one that actually maintains the file. If unsure, any reasonable department will forward under Section 6(3) within 5 days.
	+
	+	==== Is online RTI as effective as paper RTI? ====
	+
	+	For central government public authorities, [[rtionline-gov-in\|rtionline.gov.in]] is as effective as a paper RTI and usually faster, because the fee, dispatch, and date-stamp are automated. For state departments, check the state's own RTI portal or file by speed post. See [[file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India]].
	+
	+	===== File your first RTI today =====
	+
	+	Pick your situation from the five cases above. Copy the template. Fill in the file number, dates, and department. Attach a Rs. 10 Indian Postal Order. Send it by speed post or file through [[rtionline-gov-in\|rtionline.gov.in]].
	+
	+	Thirty days from today, one of two things will happen. The file will move and your problem will be solved. Or the reply will arrive with the name of the officer holding your file. Either way, you are ahead of where you were yesterday.
	+
	+	===== More RTI case guides — by issue =====
	+
	+	Each of these opens into a dedicated page with a copy-ready RTI format, 10 questions, timeline, and FAQs.
	+
	+	* [[rti-for-aadhaar-not-generated\|Aadhaar not downloading or generated — RTI to UIDAI]]
	+	* [[rti-for-aadhaar-update-rejected\|Aadhaar update stuck or rejected — RTI to fix it]]
	+	* [[rti-for-voter-id-delay\|Voter ID not received or rejected — RTI to the ERO]]
	+	* [[rti-for-passport-delay\|Passport delayed at police verification — RTI to the RPO]]
	+	* [[rti-for-passport-rejection\|Passport rejected — RTI for the exact reason and appeal]]
	+	* [[rti-for-driving-licence-delay\|Driving licence not issued — RTI to your RTO]]
	+	* [[rti-for-government-scheme-delay\|Scheme benefits not received — RTI for sanction and UTR]]
	+	* [[rti-for-pf-pension-delay\|PF withdrawal or pension delayed — RTI to EPFO]]
	+	* [[rti-for-ignored-complaint\|Complaint not acted upon — RTI to force a response]]
	+	* [[rti-for-land-records\|Land records or property status unclear — RTI to the Tehsildar]]
	+
	+	===== Related pages =====
	+
	+	* [[file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — the practical walk-through]]
	+	* [[rtionline-gov-in\|rtionline.gov.in — portal-specific steps]]
	+	* [[why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI applications get rejected and how to avoid it]]
	+	* [[guide:applicant\|Guide for applicants — the drafting primer]]
	+	* [[guide:applicant:first-appeal\|First Appeal under Section 19(1)]]
	+	* [[guide:applicant:second-appeal\|Second Appeal before the Information Commission]]
	+	* [[templates:first-rti\|Template: first RTI]]
	+	* [[explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds of rejection under Section 8]]
	+	* [[act#section-7disposal-of-request\|Time limit for an RTI reply]]
	+	* [[faq\|Frequently asked questions on RTI]]
	+
	+	===== Sources =====
	+
	+	* The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005), Sections 6, 7, 8, 19, 20.
	+	* The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in force 1 July 2024), Sections 173 and 223.
	+	* Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
	+	* CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
	+	* Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
	+	* Passport Manual, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.
	+	* Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.
	+	* CCS (Pension) Rules on PPO and disbursement, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare.
	+	* Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, National Scholarship Portal guidelines.
	+	* State land revenue codes of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Haryana (mutation timelines).
	+
	+	===== Last reviewed on =====
	+
	+	19 April 2026, with reference to the Right to Information Act, 2005 as it stands after the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3), in force 14 November 2025.
	+	//Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.//
	+
	+	{{tag>rti guide applicant personal-problems sample-rti passport pension fir mutation scholarship dpdp-2025}}