RTI Rejected? How to Fix It in First Appeal

A rejection is not the end of an RTI; it is the beginning of the real RTI. Most refusals are sent on auto-pilot and are routinely set aside by the FAA or the Information Commission. You do not need a lawyer; you need the right citation and the right format. This page walks you through the seven most common rejection grounds and gives you a sample appeal you can adapt in fifteen minutes.

• The PIO has refused your RTI in part or in full.
• The PIO has sent a “no information available” reply you do not believe.
• 30 days have passed and the PIO has not replied (Section 7(2) deemed refusal).
• The PIO has demanded an additional fee you consider unreasonable.
• The PIO has transferred your application repeatedly under Section 6(3) without effect.

1. Step 1. Re-read the PIO's reply carefully. Identify the stated ground of refusal.
2. Step 2. Match the ground to the table below and pick the relevant precedent.
3. Step 3. Copy the sample appeal letter further down.
4. Step 4. Insert your facts: date of original RTI, reference number, date of refusal.
5. Step 5. Address it to the First Appellate Authority at the same office (her name and contact are on the office's Section 4(1)(b)(xvi) page).
6. Step 6. No fee. No court fee. No advocate.
7. Step 7. Send by post (registered AD or Speed Post) and keep the dispatch receipt; or use rtionline.gov.in for online central RTIs.
8. Step 8. Diarise Day 30 (FAA must dispose by then) and Day 45 (extended limit).
9. Step 9. If the FAA does not dispose within 45 days or upholds refusal, file a Second Appeal before the CIC / SIC under Section 19(3).

The fix. Cite *Adesh Kumar v. Union of India* (Delhi High Court, 2014). The court held that “vagueness” or “irrelevance” is not a ground for refusal under Section 8. The PIO has a Section 5(4) duty to seek assistance from any other officer to clarify the request. The PIO must specifically explain which point is unclear, not refuse the whole application.

Sample paragraph for the appeal. “Without prejudice to the position that the application is in fact specific, the PIO's bald assertion of vagueness is contrary to *Adesh Kumar v. Union of India* (Delhi HC, 2014). Vagueness is not a ground under Section 8 and the PIO is duty-bound under Section 5(4) to seek the appellant's clarification before refusing. The matter may kindly be remanded to the PIO with a direction to re-examine specifically.”

The fix. Cite *Bhagat Singh v. CIC* (Delhi HC, 2007) and Section 6(3). If the records are held by another public authority, the PIO must transfer the application within five days, not refuse it. The PIO cannot abdicate by saying “not held”.

Sample paragraph. “If the information is held by another public authority, Section 6(3) requires the PIO to transfer the application within five days. The PIO has not done so. The relief sought is that the FAA direct the PIO to transfer the application to the correct office or, in the alternative, to record on file the search trail for the records claimed not to be held.”

The fix. Cite *Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC* (2013) 1 SCC 212 for the test, *CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal* (2020) 5 SCC 481 for the public-interest balance, and Section 8(2) for the override. A blanket Section 8(1)(j) refusal is bad in law; the PIO must apply the proportionality test.

Sample paragraph. “The PIO has invoked Section 8(1)(j) without applying the three-fold test laid down in *Girish Deshpande* and re-affirmed in *CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal*. The information sought is in the discharge of a public duty and bears a clear public interest. The proportionality balance has not been recorded. The relief sought is that the FAA direct disclosure with such redactions as Section 10 may permit.”

The fix. Cite Section 7(9) — the PIO can supply the information in a different form to ease the burden, but cannot refuse merely because the records are bulky. The Information Commissions have repeatedly held that volume is not a ground; severance under Section 10 is.

Sample paragraph. “The relief sought is in the alternative: (a) inspection of the records under Section 2(j) on a date convenient to the office, (b) supply on USB / CD if hard-copy is voluminous, or © phased supply over reasonable periods. Section 7(9) permits a different form of supply but does not permit a refusal.”

The fix. Section 11 is a procedure, not a refusal ground. The PIO must issue notice to the third party and weigh public interest. Cite *Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO* (Delhi HC, 2014).

Sample paragraph. “The PIO has refused under Section 11 without issuing the third-party notice required by Section 11(1). Section 11 is a procedure, not a refusal ground. The matter may kindly be remanded with a direction to follow Section 11(1) procedurally.”

The fix. Cite *Bhagat Singh v. CIC* and Section 6(2). Form is not a ground; the PIO has a Section 5(4) duty to assist. Fee-mode objections must be specifically explained, not asserted.

Sample paragraph. “The PIO's objection is procedural and contrary to Section 6(2), which bars the PIO from asking the applicant to give any reason. *Bhagat Singh* requires the PIO to facilitate, not obstruct, an application. The relief sought is that the FAA direct the PIO to take up the application on merits.”

The fix. Section 7(5) and Rule 4 of the Central RTI Rules govern the maximum fee — Rs 2 per page for photocopies and the cost price for samples. If the PIO has demanded more, file a Section 19(1) appeal challenging the demand. The fee period stops the 30-day clock under Section 7(3) only after a properly worked-out demand.

Sample paragraph. “The PIO's additional fee demand of Rs … is not supported by a per-page break-up. Under Rule 4, only Rs 2 per page (A4) is permissible. The demand is excessive and may kindly be set aside, with a direction to re-issue a worked-out fee statement.”

To,
The First Appellate Authority,
[Office name],
[Address]

Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Sir / Madam,

1. I, [Name], filed an RTI application under Section 6(1) of the RTI
   Act, 2005 with this office on [date], reference no [XXX], seeking
   the following information:
   [Brief recap of records sought].

2. The Public Information Officer replied / did not reply on [date].
   The reply / non-reply is unsatisfactory because:
   [Insert one or more paragraphs from the seven grounds above].

3. I respectfully request:
   (a) That the appeal be allowed.
   (b) That the PIO be directed to supply the records sought in full /
       in part with severance under Section 10.
   (c) That the FAA pass a speaking order under Section 19(6) within
       30 days.

4. No fee is enclosed; Section 19(1) appeals are free.

Yours faithfully,

[Signature]
[Name]
[Address, phone, email]
[Date]

Enclosures:
1. Copy of original RTI dated [date].
2. Copy of PIO's reply / proof of dispatch of original RTI.

• Filing in the High Court directly. First-appeal first; then second-appeal; then writ.
• Paying a fee for first appeal. No fee for Section 19(1) appeals.
• Naming the PIO as the respondent. The respondent is the public authority, represented by the PIO.
• Missing the 30-day deadline. Use the postmark date of the PIO's reply as Day Zero.
• Citing a statute the PIO will not have read. Stick to the seven-row table above.
• Adding new questions in the appeal. The appeal cannot expand the original RTI; file a fresh RTI for new questions.

• Second appeal under Section 19(3) within 90 days to the Central Information Commission (for central public authorities) or the State Information Commission.
• No fee in most states for second appeal; some states levy a nominal fee.
• The Commission can impose a Section 20 penalty on the PIO and order Section 19(8)(b) compensation.

Yes. Section 19(1) does not provide for any fee. Anyone asking you to pay a first-appeal fee is acting unlawfully.

No. The Act is designed for ordinary citizens. The FAA is an officer of the same public authority, not a court.

Address the appeal to “The First Appellate Authority” of the office. The Section 4(1)(b)(xvi) page lists the FAA; if it does not, write to the head of office, who must forward the appeal.

The Act fixes 30 days, extendable to 45 with reasons recorded. After 45 days, file a second appeal.

Yes, if you ask. The FAA's order must record either that you attended or that the offer of hearing was made.

Yes for central public authorities — through rtionline.gov.in. State portals vary.

No. Compensation under Section 19(8)(b) is in the Commission's powers only, not the FAA's. See FAA powers and limits.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19.
• *Bhagat Singh v. CIC*, Delhi High Court, 2007.
• *Adesh Kumar v. Union of India*, Delhi High Court, 2014.
• *Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC*, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
• *CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal*, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
• *Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO*, Delhi High Court, 2014.

• How to file a First Appeal
• Second Appeal under Section 19(3)
• Best RTI questions
• How to use AI to draft an RTI
• FAA powers and limits
• First Appeal Builder tool

Last reviewed: 9 May 2026.