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.

• §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.

1. Calculate the actual diversion — Number of pages × time per page × cost. If estimate exceeds Rs 5,000 in officer time, document it.
2. Identify a viable alternative form — Digital scan delivered as PDF (cheap) OR inspection (free) OR specific extracts on chargeable pages.
3. Communicate in writing under §7(8) — Cite §7(9), explain why direct copy is impractical, offer the alternative.
4. Set inspection schedule — Mutually convenient time/date. Allow 1-3 hours minimum.
5. Provide officer for facilitation — A junior officer to oversee inspection + answer record-related queries.
6. Allow photographs / notes — Applicant has constitutional right to take notes during inspection.

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]

Inspection at office; applicant identifies specific portions; office scans those at standard photocopy rate.

Direct visit to revenue office for inspection; certified extracts of specific khasras at Rs 5/page.

Digital delivery in batches; applicant pays storage media fee.

Inspection mandatory; copies of opened bids + scoring sheets only.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

First hour FREE. After: state-specific schedule (typically Rs 5-10/hour). Cannot charge officer time.

Reply citing §7(9) compliance + applicant's refusal — they may appeal but you have done your duty.

No — that violates §7(9) which mandates the PA provide the alternative.

Different ground — §7(9) is for form, §8(1)(j) is for content. Apply both separately if applicable.

Rarely — only where genuine safety/preservation concern (e.g., 100-year-old fragile record).

• pio faa knowledge base
• pio speaking replies
• pio deemed refusal section 7 2
• act/section-7
• rti form of information

RTI Act §7(9); Bhagat Singh v CIC (Delhi HC 2007); CIC database; ICRPC commentary on §7(9).

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.