First Appeal under RTI — §19(1) procedure + online routes (2026)

Quick answer. A First Appeal is the statutory remedy under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 when (a) the Public Information Officer (PIO) hasn't replied within 30 days under §7(1) — a deemed refusal under §7(2); (b) the PIO has refused / supplied incomplete or misleading information; or © the PIO has demanded an exorbitant further fee under §7(3). File the appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) — an officer senior in rank to the PIO of the same public authority. Time limit: 30 days from receipt of the PIO order (or from the deemed-refusal date), extendable by the FAA on cause shown. No fee for central public authorities under the Central RTI Rules, 2012. Some states (Maharashtra Rs 20, Andhra Pradesh Rs 10, etc.) prescribe a fee — check your State RTI Rules. The FAA must dispose within 30 days, extendable to 45 days with reasons recorded under §19(6). FAA decisions are binding on the PIO and may direct free-of-cost supply under §7(6) when the PIO crossed Day 30. Beyond the FAA, escalate via Second Appeal under §19(3) to the Central / State Information Commission within 90 days, where a §20 penalty up to Rs 25,000 may be imposed personally on the PIO. Online filing is supported on rtionline.gov.in (central) and most state portals (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Delhi, Tamil Nadu). A complete sample appeal letter, three real-life recovery cases, the §19 vs §18 distinction, and the full statutory ladder are below.

→ Timeline Calculator to track every clock. → First Appeal Builder to draft your §19(1) appeal in 5 minutes.

Under §19(1), an appeal lies in six concrete situations:

1. No reply by Day 30 — the PIO did not respond to your RTI within 30 days; treat as deemed refusal under §7(2).
2. Reply received but unsatisfactory — the PIO refused, supplied partial information, or supplied incorrect / misleading information.
3. Exorbitant further fee demanded — the PIO has invoked §7(3) for additional fee that is unreasonable; “reasonable” is bounded by the Central / State RTI Fee Rules.
4. PIO transferred RTI under §6(3) but the transferee did not respond within 30 days from receipt at the transferee's office.
5. PIO issued §11 notice to a third party but did not decide within 40 days from receipt of the original RTI.
6. PIO's decision under §11(3) to disclose third-party information that the third party objects to — the third party's appeal lies under §19(2).

Renu Bansal, retired clerk, had filed an RTI on 2 January 2026 to the PAO (Pensions), Principal Accounts Office. Her pension had been pending 8 months. No reply by Day 30. On Day 33 (3 February), she filed a §19(1) appeal to the Joint Secretary (FAA), MoH&FW — annexing the RTI + Speed Post AD card. Day 41: FAA ordered free-of-cost supply under §7(6). Day 53: PIO supplied the noting — the PPO had been prepared on 14 December but stuck on a single signature. Day 71: first pension instalment + 8-month arrears credited.

Vinod, a retired teacher, sought 798 file notings under a state Land Reform query. The PIO demanded Rs 7,980 application fee + Rs 4,788 page charges, treating each file as a separate RTI. Vinod's §19(1) appeal cited the proviso to §7(5) — fee must be reasonable — and quoted ICAI v. Shaunak Satya plus the Central RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. Day 22: FAA fixed fee at Rs 10 + Rs 2/page; PIO supplied the records under the corrected fee.

Pratibha, a PWD junior engineer, sought her colleague's recruitment-stage caste certificate (relevant to her own promotion appeal). The PIO refused under §8(1)(j) — “unwarranted invasion of privacy”. Day 33: she filed a §19(1) appeal citing Bhagat Singh v. CIC (recruitment is a public activity), §44(3) DPDP-amended §8(1)(j) (the public-interest override now operates only via §8(2)), and §10 severance (which the PIO had not even attempted). Day 47: FAA ordered supply, free of cost under §7(6).

The decisive lever in each case was different — silence in case 1, fee in case 2, wrong-clause in case 3. The FAA is the cheapest forum to surface all three.

• The original RTI applicant, aggrieved by deemed refusal, refusal, partial supply, misleading information, or exorbitant fee — under §19(1).
• A third party whose information has been ordered to be disclosed under §11(3) — under §19(2). This is the only route for a third party to contest disclosure once the PIO has approved it.

1. First place to look — the PIO's reply must name the FAA under §7(8)(iii). Open the order, scroll to the bottom.
2. Second place — the public authority's website under “Right to Information” / “Section 4 disclosures”. Every authority must publish PIO + FAA + APIO contact details under §4(1)(b)(xvi).
3. Third place — the RTI Notice Board at the public authority's reception. Telephoning the office's general line works too.
4. If none of the above — address the appeal as “The First Appellate Authority under RTI, Office of [Authority Name and Address]” and send to the same address as the PIO. The receiving office is bound to forward it.
5. APIO route — under §5(2), an appeal can also be lodged via the APIO at the nearest sub-office for onward transmission to the FAA.

The +7 days postal transit allowance is consistently read in by FAAs and the CIC. The safe rule of thumb: file at Day 31, never argue transit.

1. Title and addressing — “Before The First Appellate Authority under RTI, [Office of the Public Authority]” followed by “Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
2. Brief facts — date of original RTI; what was sought; PIO's decision (or deemed denial); what was supplied / not supplied; why aggrieved. Annex RTI as Annexure-A and PIO order (if any) as Annexure-B.
3. Grounds for appeal — logical reasons indicating how and why the PIO erred. Each ground a separate numbered paragraph. Cite the section of the RTI Act / state rules. Cite case law where applicable (Bhagat Singh, Aditya Bandopadhyay, Jayantilal Mistry, Shaunak Satya, Adesh Kumar).
4. Personal-hearing request — the FAA is required to grant a hearing under §19(5) in compliance with natural justice. Write at the end: “the appellant requests a personal hearing under Section 19(5) before disposal.” Hearing is not mandatory for the appellant — skip if you cannot attend.
5. Prayers — specific reliefs sought.
6. Signature — right-bottom, with date and full address.
7. Annexures — self-attested photocopy of the RTI; PIO reply (if any); Speed Post AD card / India Post delivered-status printout proving PIO receipt date; supporting documents.

“I have preferred Application dated [] under Section 6(1) read with Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the SPIO, [Office of Public Authority]. The application was received and acknowledged on [] (Speed Post AD card at Annexure-B). As per Section 7(1), the PIO is required to decide within 30 days from receipt. As on the date of this appeal, no order has been received. The silence amounts to a deemed denial under Section 7(2).”

“The SPIO communicated further fee vide letter dated [] (Annexure-B) demanding Rs [] application fee + Rs [] document charges for [] pages. The fee is in excess of the Rules — the application fee under the Central RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 is Rs 10 per RTI, and Rs 2 per page of A4 information. The SPIO has fragmented one consolidated RTI into multiple application-fee demands with the malafide intent of discouraging disclosure. The fee proviso to Section 7(5) requires fees to be reasonable; this demand is not.”

“The CPIO denied information on item [] under Section 8(1)(j) — personal information, unwarranted invasion of privacy. The records sought arise from a recruitment / public-activity process; recruitment is a public activity per Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC W.P.(C) 3114/2007). After the DPDP Act 2023 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) (Section 44(3), notified 14 November 2025), the public-interest override now operates only through Section 8(2); the PIO's order conflates the old and new text and is therefore based on a wrong reading of the statute. Severability under Section 10 was not even attempted.”

“The total time available for the PIO to supply information is 30 days under Section 7(1) read with Section 7(3)(a). The PIO neither communicated his decision nor supplied information within the stipulated period. No response is a deemed denial under Section 7(2). The appellant is therefore entitled to receive the information free of cost under Section 7(6) of the Act.”

“What the appellant has sought is a single category of information on a single subject. The SPIO has fragmented this single application into multiple application-fee demands, each at Rs 10, with malafide intention to discourage the appellant. There is no statutory basis under the RTI Act, 2005 or the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 for treating one consolidated RTI as multiple separate RTIs. The further-fee demand is illegal, unreasonable, and intended to defeat the right granted under Section 3 of the Act.”

“Exemption under Section 8(1)(j) is available only for information with no relationship to public activity and where disclosure would unwarrantedly invade privacy. The records arise from a recruitment process — a public activity within Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC W.P.(C) 3114/2007). Even if a part is exempt, Section 10(1) and 10(2) require the non-exempt part to be supplied — the PIO has not done so. Section 8(2) public-interest override has not been considered.”

1. Direct the SPIO to supply the information sought vide RTI Application dated [], free of cost under §7(6), within 10 days from the date of this appeal's decision.
2. In the eventuality of the FAA arriving at a decision other than the above, the PIO be put to strict proof under §19(5).
3. Direct the PIO to supply certified copies of the information.
4. Record and supply reasons under §19(5) read with §4(1)(d) for any decision adverse to the appellant.
5. Dispose the appeal within 30 days of receipt as provided under §19(6).
6. Grant a personal hearing to the appellant under §19(5) before disposal.

If your state portal doesn't support online appeals, Speed Post (AD) from India Post is the universally accepted route. Track delivery via India Post tracking and print the delivered-status for your record.

• Fee for First Appeal — central authorities: No fee under the Central RTI Rules, 2012.
• Fee for First Appeal — states: Some states prescribe a fee (Maharashtra Rs 20, Andhra Pradesh Rs 10, others nil). Always check the State RTI Rules.
• Format: No prescribed format for central appeals. Some states prescribe a format — comply where prescribed; otherwise the seven-part structure above is universally accepted.
• Submission: Speed Post with AD or Registered Post AD; or online via the relevant portal.
• Personal delivery: Acceptable, but always insist on a date-stamped acknowledgement copy. Never courier — courier delivery is not accepted as proof in many CIC orders.
• Multiple appeals on the same day: Put a different date on each appeal so the FAA's responses are distinguishable.
• Preserve the bundle: Keep one full set of the appeal, all annexures, the original India Post receipt, and the AD card / delivered-status printout in a single folder. You will need it at Second Appeal stage.

A common confusion: the §19 appeal and the §18 complaint serve different purposes and run on parallel tracks.

For most citizens, §19 is the right starting point. §18 makes sense when the PIO's behaviour is part of a pattern and the citizen wants the systemic remedy of penalty + departmental action.

The First Appeal is decisive in:

• Deemed-refusal cases — FAA can order free-of-cost supply under §7(6).
• Exorbitant further fee — FAA can fix a reasonable fee under §7(5) without escalation.
• Wrong §8(1)(j) invocation — FAA can apply Bhagat Singh + §44(3) DPDP-amended text and order disclosure.
• Fragmented disclosure / no §10 severance — FAA can order severance and supply.
• §7(3) further-fee disputes — FAA cuts the fee to the prescribed Rs 10 + Rs 2/page floor.

The FAA is not decisive when:

• Systemic policy of withholding (surveillance, intelligence, classified files) — go straight to Second Appeal under §19(3) + parallel Section 18 complaint.
• PIO acted in bad faith — Section 18 to the CIC / SIC under §18(1)©/(d) is the right route, parallel to §19.

• Time limit: Within 90 days of the FAA order (or non-decision past 45 days) under Section 19(3).
• Forum: Central Information Commission (CIC) for central authorities; State Information Commission (SIC) for state authorities.
• Forum portals: cic.gov.in for central; respective state SIC portals.
• No fee for Second Appeal at CIC. State SIC fees vary.
• Penalty under Section 20: The Commission can impose Rs 250/day (max Rs 25,000) on the PIO for malafide refusal, undue delay, or supplying false/misleading information. Plead this as relief in your Second Appeal grounds.
• Implementation: Commission orders are enforceable under §19(7); non-implementation triggers contempt before the High Court.

→ Second Appeal — full procedure with sample memo.

1. Filing past Day 30 without seeking condonation. The FAA can condone delay under §19(1), but you must explicitly plead it with reasons.
2. No annexure of the original RTI. Without proof of original filing, the FAA cannot verify the timeline.
3. No proof of PIO receipt date. Speed Post AD card / delivered-status printout is the default proof.
4. Vague grounds. “PIO is wrong” is not a ground. State which Section / Rule the PIO violated and how.
5. Asking for new questions in the appeal. The §19 appeal addresses only the original RTI's questions. New questions need a fresh §6(1) RTI.
6. Not pleading §7(6) free-of-cost supply when applicable. The FAA can grant it but won't if you don't plead.
7. Not requesting a personal hearing when you want one. The FAA grants on request.
8. Filing to the wrong FAA (e.g., from another department of the same ministry). Verify with the PIO order's §7(8)(iii) reference.

The clock for First Appeal starts from the date of receipt of the PIO order by the applicant, or from the expiry of the 30-day period if there is no order. §19(1) gives 30 days from that trigger. File on Day 31 to avoid any postal-transit dispute.

No fee for central public authorities under the Central RTI Rules, 2012. Some states prescribe a fee (Maharashtra Rs 20, Andhra Pradesh Rs 10, Delhi nil). Always check your State RTI Rules.

No. The FAA must grant a hearing under §19(5), but attendance is the appellant's choice. If you cannot travel, decide the appeal on written submissions only — explicitly state this in the prayer.

Yes for central authorities — via rtionline.gov.in under “First Appeal” against the original RTI registration number. Most state portals (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Delhi, Tamil Nadu) also support online filing. Speed Post (AD) remains the universal fallback.

Treat silence past 45 days as deemed disposal and file a Second Appeal under §19(3) to the CIC / SIC within 90 days. Mention the FAA's failure as a separate ground.

Yes. §19(5) requires the PIO to show cause why the appeal should not be allowed. The PIO will typically file a written statement; sometimes the PIO appears in person, especially in §8 / §11 disputes.

Yes — a third party whose information has been ordered to be disclosed under §11(3) can appeal under §19(2) within 30 days. This is the only route for a third party to contest disclosure.

(a) Self-attested photocopy of the RTI Application (Annexure-A); (b) Self-attested copy of the PIO order, if any (Annexure-B); © Speed Post AD card / India Post delivered-status printout proving PIO receipt date; (d) Any other supporting document — case law, prior correspondence.

No. The First Appeal can challenge the PIO's decision only on the questions originally raised. New questions require a fresh RTI under §6(1).

Yes. File the First Appeal challenging the non-supply part. Quote §10(1) and §10(2) — the PIO is bound to sever and supply the non-exempt parts.

No — penalty under §20 is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information Commission (CIC / SIC). The FAA can direct supply but cannot impose a fine. To get a penalty, plead §20 in your Second Appeal before the Commission.

Yes. The FAA is the senior officer of the same public authority; the order is administratively binding. Non-compliance can be raised before the CIC / SIC under §19(8) along with a §20 penalty plea.

File a Second Appeal under §19(3) to the CIC / SIC within 90 days. The Commission can review on facts and law — and impose §20 penalty if mala fide is established.

Yes — Hindi or any scheduled language under the Eighth Schedule. The FAA must respond in the same language or English under §4(4) read with State RTI Rules.

• General first appeal (deemed refusal) — Word file

→ ⚖ Open First Appeal Builder — generates the complete appeal letter with your facts, grounds, and prayers in 5 minutes. Free, no login.

1. [ ] Day 31 hit without PIO reply? Date noted on calendar
2. [ ] Original RTI + Speed Post AD card / delivered-status printout in folder
3. [ ] PIO order (if any) printed; FAA name + designation noted from §7(8)(iii)
4. [ ] Brief facts drafted (use Situation A / B / C above)
5. [ ] Grounds drafted (use Ground A / B / C above)
6. [ ] Prayer including §7(6) free-of-cost supply where applicable
7. [ ] Personal-hearing request added (or skipped intentionally)
8. [ ] Online portal filed OR Speed Post (AD) tracking number saved
9. [ ] Calendar reminder set for Day 30 / 45 from FAA receipt
10. [ ] Second Appeal letter pre-drafted as Day 91 fallback
11. [ ] §18 complaint considered if bad-faith pattern exists

• First Appeal — overview hub
• Second Appeal to CIC / SIC
• RTI grounds for rejection — 10 valid §8 grounds + counter-strategies
• Sample RTI applications — 40+ subjects
• RTI for PMAY status — citizen guide
• Voter ID status — EPIC tracker, RTI escalation
• Toll plaza RTI — concession agreement
• RTI Rules — central + state fee tables
• First Appeal Builder · Timeline Calculator · PIO Reply Checker · AI RTI Drafter

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 4(1)(b)(xvi), 4(1)(d), 5(2), 6(1), 6(3), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(5), 7(6), 7(8)(iii), 8(1), 10, 11, 18, 19(1), 19(2), 19(3), 19(5), 19(6), 19(7), 19(8), 20
• The Right to Information Rules, 2012 (Central) — First Appeal fee and format
• State RTI Rules — Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka — see state-wise table
• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3) amending RTI §8(1)(j) (effective 14 November 2025)
• Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, Delhi HC W.P.(C) 3114/2007 — speaking-order requirement on §8 invocations
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — answer-script disclosure as public interest, §8(1)(e) narrow
• ICAI v. Shaunak Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 — fiduciary clause on examiner identity
• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 5 SCC 136 — public-interest override on commercial-confidence
• Adesh Kumar v. Union of India, Delhi HC 2014 — burden of proof on the PIO under §19(5)
• R.K. Jain v. UoI, (2013) 14 SCC 794 — post-decisional disclosability of file notings
• Central Information Commission — cic.gov.in (orders database)

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Google+
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr
• Reddit
• StumbleUpon
• Telegram
• Email

~~LINKBACK:closed~~

{REVIEWED}

Last reviewed: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team. All citations verified against the RTI Act 2005, RTI Rules 2012, state RTI rules, the DPDP Act 2023, and CIC / SC / HC orders as on 4 May 2026.