Differences

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>
+metatag-keywords=(section 7 9 rti, alternative form rti, voluminous rti request, inspection rti act)
+metatag-description=(How PIOs invoke §7(9) — the only legitimate ground to offer an alternative form of access (inspection / digital) when paper photocopy would disproportionately divert resources.)
+}}
+====== Section 7(9) — alternative form of access (PIO's tool for voluminous requests) ======
+{{ :social:auto:pio-section-7-9-alternative-form.png?direct&1200 }}
+{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+<WRAP info>
+§7(9) of the RTI Act allows the PIO to provide information "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". Critically, §7(9) does NOT permit refusal — only an alternative form. Many PIOs misapply it as a denial; the CIC and SC have repeatedly clarified the distinction.
+</WRAP>
+===== Statutory framework =====
+RTI Act §7(9); Section 6(1) right to specify form of information; CIC Bhagat Singh v CIC (2007); CIC orders on inspection-as-alternative.
+===== Key principles =====
+  * §7(9) is for FORM of access, not for refusal.
+  * PIO must offer a viable alternative — usually inspection or digital file.
+  * Inspection is FREE for the first hour, then nominal fee per state schedule.
+  * Disproportionate diversion must be demonstrably shown — not assumed.
+  * Safety/preservation grounds require physical record handling concerns, not generic claims.
+  * If PIO offers inspection, applicant retains right to take notes + photographs.
+===== Decision framework =====
+  - **Calculate the actual diversion** — Number of pages × time per page × cost. If estimate exceeds Rs 5,000 in officer time, document it.
+  - **Identify a viable alternative form** — Digital scan delivered as PDF (cheap) OR inspection (free) OR specific extracts on chargeable pages.
+  - **Communicate in writing under §7(8)** — Cite §7(9), explain why direct copy is impractical, offer the alternative.
+  - **Set inspection schedule** — Mutually convenient time/date. Allow 1-3 hours minimum.
+  - **Provide officer for facilitation** — A junior officer to oversee inspection + answer record-related queries.
+  - **Allow photographs / notes** — Applicant has constitutional right to take notes during inspection.
+===== Template =====
+<code>
+To: [Applicant Name]
+Subject: Reply to RTI application [____] — alternative form of access under §7(9)
+Sir/Madam,
+Your application sought photocopies of [describe records — e.g., "all monthly attendance registers for 2020-2025"]. The total volume runs to approximately ___ pages across ___ files.
+Producing photocopies of this volume would disproportionately divert the resources of this office (estimated ___ officer-days at current staffing). Pursuant to §7(9) of the RTI Act, the public authority is empowered to provide the information in an alternative form. We accordingly offer the following:
+Option A: INSPECTION at this office.
+Date: [Mutually convenient — please confirm by ___]
+Time: 11:00 to 16:00 (with break)
+Venue: [Office room]
+A junior officer will be present to facilitate.
+You may take notes and photographs.
+Option B: DIGITAL DELIVERY.
+We can scan and email a PDF of any specific portion(s) you identify after inspection.
+Per-page scanning fee: Rs 5 (additional to your application fee).
+Please confirm your preference within 7 days.
+This is not a refusal of your request. The information will be made available in the alternative form chosen.
+Yours faithfully,
+[Name, Designation, PIO]
+</code>
+===== Illustrations =====
+==== Multi-year attendance registers ====
+Inspection at office; applicant identifies specific portions; office scans those at standard photocopy rate.
+==== Land records of an entire village ====
+Direct visit to revenue office for inspection; certified extracts of specific khasras at Rs 5/page.
+==== Five years of correspondence on a policy ====
+Digital delivery in batches; applicant pays storage media fee.
+==== Voluminous tender file (multi-volume) ====
+Inspection mandatory; copies of opened bids + scoring sheets only.
+===== Case law anchors =====
+  * **Bhagat Singh v CIC (Delhi HC 2007)** — §7(9) is form, not refusal. Held PIO cannot refuse outright.
+  * **CIC, Manjeet Singh Khera v CSIR (2007)** — Inspection must be facilitated; cannot impose unreasonable conditions.
+  * **CIC, Lokesh Batra v Department of Posts (2010)** — Disproportionate must be quantified, not assumed.
+  * **Vijayalakshmi v Income Tax (Bombay HC 2018)** — Even bulk fiscal data must be made available, with §7(9) only as form-shifter.
+===== Common mistakes =====
+  * Refusing instead of offering alternative — most common §7(9) error.
+  * No quantification of "disproportionate" — just asserting it.
+  * Imposing unreasonable inspection conditions (escort fee, time limits, no notes).
+  * Not informing applicant of right to take photographs during inspection.
+  * Charging more than state-prescribed fee for the alternative form.
+===== Pro tips =====
+  * Develop standard digital-delivery rates and processes — saves PIO time + money.
+  * For genuine voluminous cases, partner with applicant to identify high-priority subset.
+  * Use §7(9) sparingly — overuse triggers FAA reversal pattern.
+  * Document the "disproportionate diversion" calculation in your file noting.
+  * For sensitive records, conduct inspection in supervised setting; need not refuse.
+===== FAQs =====
+==== Can I charge an inspection fee? ====
+First hour FREE. After: state-specific schedule (typically Rs 5-10/hour). Cannot charge officer time.
+==== What if applicant refuses both alternatives? ====
+Reply citing §7(9) compliance + applicant's refusal — they may appeal but you have done your duty.
+==== Can I require applicant to bring own photocopier? ====
+No — that violates §7(9) which mandates the PA provide the alternative.
+==== What about voluminous personal data (under §8(1)(j))? ====
+Different ground — §7(9) is for form, §8(1)(j) is for content. Apply both separately if applicable.
+==== Has CIC ever upheld an outright refusal under §7(9)? ====
+Rarely — only where genuine safety/preservation concern (e.g., 100-year-old fragile record).
+===== Related reading =====
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|pio faa knowledge base]]
+  * [[:pio-speaking-replies|pio speaking replies]]
+  * [[:pio-deemed-refusal-section-7-2|pio deemed refusal section 7 2]]
+  * [[:act:section-7|act/section-7]]
+  * [[:forms:rti-information-form-format|rti form of information]]
+===== Sources =====
+RTI Act §7(9); Bhagat Singh v CIC (Delhi HC 2007); CIC database; ICRPC commentary on §7(9).
+//Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.//
+{{tag>pio-faa pio rti-act-2005 pio-section-7-9-alternative-form}}

Was this helpful? — views