Section 7(1). PIO to respond within 30 days of receipt.

Section 7(2). Failure to communicate a decision within the period in sub-section (1) shall be deemed refusal.

Section 7(3). Where the PIO requires additional fee, the 30-day period starts from the date of communication of the fee and the applicant's payment.

Section 7(5). If further fee is charged, the applicant can appeal it.

Section 19(1). First Appeal lies against the PIO's decision, including deemed refusal.

Section 20(1). Penalty on the PIO who fails to receive or respond: Rs. 250/day, capped at Rs. 25,000; plus recommended disciplinary action.

• Silence is refusal. No further act required from the PIO; the applicant's appeal right accrues on Day 31.
• Burden on the PIO. Under Section 19(5), the PIO must prove the denial was justified — hard to do when there was no reasoning.
• Late reply ≠ cure. A reply issued on Day 35 does not cure the deemed refusal; the Commission can still impose penalty.
• Timelines extend in specific cases.
  • 48 hours — life/liberty (Section 7(1) proviso).
  • 35 days — Section 6(3) transfer (30 days from transferee's receipt).
  • 40 days — Section 11 third-party procedure.
• Fee suspends the clock. If PIO intimates fee on Day 10, the clock restarts on payment date (Section 7(3)).

1. Step 1 — Calculate the delay. From Day 31 (or the relevant adjusted date) till the date of actual reply (or the date of Commission hearing if no reply).
2. Step 2 — Assess reason on the file. Genuine reasons (file transit, public-authority closure, natural disaster) mitigate; routine backlog does not.
3. Step 3 — Issue the reply immediately. Even a late reply is better than none; it caps further Section 20 exposure.
4. Step 4 — Attach an apology + explanation in the reply. Not legally required, but routinely softens Commission response.
5. Step 5 — Respond to the First Appeal honestly. The FAA will examine the file; candour works.
6. Step 6 — If summoned by the Commission, attend in person with the file and the reasons. Section 20 proceedings are mitigable when reasons are recorded.

Ref: RTI/[Authority]/[Year]/[Sr. No.]
Date: DD-MM-YYYY

To,
[Applicant]

Subject: Reply to your RTI application dated DD-MM-YYYY.

Sir/Madam,

This Office acknowledges the delay in responding to your RTI application. The statutory deadline under Section 7(1) was DD-MM-YYYY. This reply is being issued on DD-MM-YYYY, a delay of __ days. The reasons recorded on the file are: [briefly state genuine reasons].

Notwithstanding the delay, the substantive reply to your application is as under:

[Full speaking reply, question-wise, as per our PIO reply guide format]

This Office regrets the delay. The applicant's rights under Section 19 remain preserved. Any further fee has been waived as per Section 7(6).

Yours faithfully,
[PIO block]

• Section 20(1). Penalty of Rs. 250 per day of delay, maximum Rs. 25,000 — payable personally, not from government funds.
• Section 20(2). Recommendation for disciplinary action under the officer's service rules.
• Reputational. Pattern of deemed refusals in the authority's annual report.
• Auto-fee-waiver. Under Section 7(6), no further fee is payable by the applicant when the deadline is missed.

• Ignoring the deadline. Hoping the applicant won't notice — they usually do.
• Back-dating the reply. Risky; Commission can verify with dispatch records.
• Blaming “volume”. Rarely mitigates without Section 7(9) procedure.
• Treating Section 6(3) transfer as a deadline reset for yourself. Only the transferee's 30-day clock resets; the originator's liability for late transfer remains.

• Maintain a deadline tracker. Simple spreadsheet with file number, receipt date, Day 28 alert, Day 30 alert.
• Delegate acknowledgements. A Day-1 acknowledgement letter keeps the applicant engaged and reduces escalation.
• Flag tough cases to senior. If a case genuinely needs 30+ days, flag to the FAA and issue an honest interim reply under Section 7(9).
• Keep fee-intimation evidence. Critical if the clock needs to restart under Section 7(3).

• K.V. Ramani v. CIC (CIC, multiple) — Section 7(2) deemed refusal operates automatically; PIO cannot self-extend.
• Sarbajit Roy v. DERC (CIC 2006) — reinforced that a reply beyond deadline does not cure the breach.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — PIOs bound by statutory timelines.

Q1. If the applicant doesn't appeal, am I safe?
Not fully. The Commission has acted on its own motion in some cases; and audits may flag patterns of delay.

Q2. Can the PIO waive the 30-day rule by mutual agreement with the applicant?
No. It is a statutory deadline, not contractual.

Q3. What if the delay is due to a superior officer's delay?
The PIO can record this on the file; the Commission may redirect penalty accordingly. But the PIO remains the primary answerable officer.

Q4. Does a partial reply meet the deadline?
Only if each question is addressed or specifically identified as pending with reasons. A genuine interim + final structure is acceptable.

Section 7(2) is unforgiving on paper and workable in practice — if the PIO issues the reply promptly (even late), explains the delay honestly, and maintains the file trail. Deemed refusal is serious, but it is not unrecoverable.

• PIO RTI reply guide
• Drafting speaking replies
• Section 7(9) alternative form
• First Appeal timelines
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• RTI Act, 2005, Sections 7, 19, 20
• K.V. Ramani v. CIC, CIC orders
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.