RTI Act 2005 Explained Simply

If you are short on time, jump straight to the 30-day clock, appeals, or the worked pension example.

This page walks through the Right to Information Act, 2005 section by section, in everyday English. Every claim cites the exact provision so you can verify against the bare statute. For the long-form, sub-section by sub-section breakdown see the complete RTI Act guide. For an end-to-end how-to-file workflow see the citizen RTI playbook. Officers should read the PIO and FAA handbook.

The RTI Act is a 31-section central statute that came into force on 12 October 2005. It does one thing: it converts the citizen-government relationship on documents from “discretionary” to “mandatory”. Before 2005 you had to know someone, file a writ, or use the Official Secrets Act-tainted system to see government paper. After 2005, you pay Rs 10, ask in writing, and the State has 30 days to produce the record. Section 22 makes the Act override every inconsistent law, including the Official Secrets Act, 1923.

The Act applies to every “public authority”: every Union and State ministry, every panchayat, every PSU, every body substantially financed by government, every constitutional body, every body created by notification. The test for “substantially financed” was settled by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala (2013).

Section 3 says: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” That is the entire grant. Three things follow:

• Citizenship matters. Only Indian citizens can file. OCI and PIO card holders, foreign nationals, foreign companies and foreign NGOs have no Section 3 standing. NRIs holding Indian passports retain the right.
• Legal persons cannot file. A company, society or NGO has no citizenship and so no Section 3 standing. The standard workaround is filing in the name of a citizen office-bearer.
• No reason needed. Section 6(2) bars the PIO from asking why you want the information. You also need not disclose any personal details beyond what is needed to contact you.

Section 2(f) defines “information” broadly: any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data held in any electronic form, and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law.

Section 2(j) defines the citizen “right to information” to include inspection of work, documents and records, taking notes and extracts, taking certified copies, and taking samples of material.

What RTI is not good for: opinions that have not been recorded, hypothetical questions (“would you allow X?”), justifications, future plans not yet committed to paper. RTI gives you records, not explanations.

Section 8(1) lists ten grounds on which a PIO may refuse disclosure, plus Section 8(3) which limits historical exemptions to 20 years. Section 9 adds an eleventh ground for third-party copyright. The eleven heads of refusal:

1. §8(1)(a) sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State.
2. §8(1)(b) information expressly forbidden to be published by a court or whose disclosure would constitute contempt.
3. §8(1)© breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.
4. §8(1)(d) commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure would harm a third party's competitive position, unless public interest warrants disclosure.
5. §8(1)(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless public interest warrants disclosure.
6. §8(1)(f) information received in confidence from a foreign government.
7. §8(1)(g) information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify a confidential source.
8. §8(1)(h) information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
9. §8(1)(i) cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers, with a release-after-decision proviso.
10. §8(1)(j) personal information that has no relationship to public activity or interest, or that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless public interest warrants disclosure. After the DPDP Act 2023 amendment (in force from late 2025), this clause is read more strictly; expect personal-information refusals to rise.
11. §9 request involving disclosure of copyright material held by a person other than the State.

Two safety valves apply:

• §8(2) public-interest override. Even a §8(1) exemption falls if disclosure serves a public interest greater than the protected harm.
• §10 severability. If part of a record is exempt, the PIO must release the non-exempt part after blanking out the exempt portion.

Section 5(1) tells every public authority to designate a Public Information Officer (PIO) within 100 days of the Act coming into force. Section 5(2) lets it also designate Assistant PIOs (APIOs) at sub-divisional level whose only job is to receive applications and forward them. Section 5(4) lets the PIO seek the help of any other officer; that helper is treated as a PIO under §5(5) for purposes of penalty.

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) is not a “designation” the way PIO is. It is whichever officer is senior in rank to the PIO in the same public authority. Section 19(1) requires every public authority to identify the FAA on its website under §4(1)(b)(xvi).

Section 7(1) is the timeline clause:

• 30 days is the standard. The clock starts when the application reaches the PIO, not when it leaves your hand.
• 48 hours if the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person.
• 35 days if the application was filed with an APIO (an extra 5 days for transit).
• 40 days if a third-party notice under §11 is involved (30 + 10 days for the third party to object).
• 45 days maximum if the request concerns allegations of human-rights violations against an exempt §24 organisation.

Section 7(2): if the PIO does not respond within the prescribed period, it is deemed refusal, and the applicant can file a First Appeal immediately without waiting any longer.

The application fee is Rs 10 for Central Government bodies. State rules range from Rs 10 to Rs 50. Section 7(5) waives all fees for applicants Below Poverty Line (BPL); attach the BPL certificate. Section 7(6) says that if the PIO fails to respond within the time limit, information must be supplied free of charge, even if it ran into hundreds of pages.

Additional cost per page (typically Rs 2 per A4 page) is payable after the PIO sends a §7(3) intimation; the time you take to pay does not count against the 30-day clock.

You file a First Appeal when:

• The PIO refuses the information.
• The PIO sends an incomplete, misleading or evasive reply.
• The PIO does not respond within 30 days (deemed refusal under §7(2)).
• The PIO asks for unreasonable fees.

Window: 30 days from the PIO order or the date the 30-day reply window expired. Section 19(1) allows a 30-day extension if the appellant shows sufficient cause for delay.

Who decides: the First Appellate Authority (officer senior to the PIO in the same public authority).

Timeline for FAA: 30 days from receipt, extendable to 45 days with reasons recorded in writing.

Fee: no Central fee. Some States charge a token Rs 20 to Rs 50.

The First Appellate Authority can confirm, modify or set aside the PIO order, and direct disclosure on terms. The FAA cannot impose §20 penalty; that power lies only with the Information Commission. Templates and a step-by-step worksheet are in the First Appeal builder.

If the FAA also fails you, Section 19(3) lets you file a Second Appeal to the Central Information Commission (for Central bodies) or the State Information Commission (for State bodies).

Window: 90 days from the FAA order, extendable for sufficient cause.

Powers of the Commission (§19(8)): require the public authority to provide access, appoint a PIO if missing, publish information proactively under §4, make changes to record-keeping, enhance training, and award compensation for loss or detriment under §19(8)(b). The Commission also has the power under §20 to impose penalty on the PIO and recommend disciplinary action.

Section 20(1) is the teeth of the Act. The Information Commission, after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity to be heard, shall impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay, subject to a maximum of Rs 25,000, where it finds the PIO has, without reasonable cause,

• refused to receive an application;
• not furnished information within the timeline;
• malafidely denied a request;
• knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;
• destroyed information that was the subject of a request; or
• obstructed the furnishing of information in any other manner.

Section 20(2) lets the Commission also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable. The burden of proving “reasonable cause” lies on the PIO under §20(1) proviso.

These four cases shape how every Information Commission reads the Act today:

• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) - examinees have a right under RTI to inspect their answer sheets; CBSE cannot claim §8(1)(e) fiduciary protection because there is no fiduciary relationship between examining body and examinee. Settled “examination disclosure” jurisprudence.
• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry (2015) - RBI cannot withhold inspection reports of banks on a §8(1)(e) fiduciary plea. The Court held that the regulator-regulated relationship is not fiduciary, and that disclosure serves the larger public interest in banking-sector transparency.
• Subhash Chandra Aggarwal v. CPIO, Supreme Court (2019, Constitution Bench) - the office of the Chief Justice of India is a “public authority” under §2(h). Judges' assets disclosures, collegium correspondence and similar records fall within RTI, subject to the §8(1)(j) personal-information balancing.
• Aniruddha Bahal v. State (Delhi HC, 2010) - a sting journalist filing RTI to expose MP cash-for-question scandal cannot be prosecuted for “bribing” public servants when the intent was to demonstrate corruption; the case clarified that whistle-blowing through RTI evidence is protected speech.

Browse the full collection in the RTI case-law database.

A common citizen mistake is to file an RTI when they actually want a grievance resolved or a refund. Quick discriminator:

• RTI Act gives you a record (a copy of a file, a tender, a noting, a contract). It does not order anyone to do anything other than hand over paper.
• CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System on pgportal.gov.in) is for grievances: pension stuck, EPF claim pending, passport stuck. It directs an officer to act.
• District Consumer Commission is for deficiency of service by a paid service provider, public or private, with monetary compensation up to Rs 50 lakh as the remedy.

Decide before you file. The full comparison and decision tree are at RTI vs CPGRAMS vs Consumer Commission. For complaints involving cyber fraud and frozen bank accounts, the right pipeline is 1930 helpline plus the bank-freeze playbook, not RTI.

A retired clerk in Ahmedabad has not received her family-pension arrears nine months after her husband's death. She has written four letters to the Accountant General. No reply. Here is the RTI-driven sequence she ran in early 2026, with timestamps:

- Day 0 - file a 6-line RTI to the PIO, Office of the Accountant General (A&E) Gujarat, asking: (a) current status of pension file number XXX, (b) copy of all noting and correspondence on the file since the date of death, © name and designation of the dealing officer, (d) expected date of release. Fee: Rs 10 IPO. Mode: Speed Post AD. - Day 22 - PIO reply: file is “under process”. No noting copies attached. Treated as evasive. - Day 23 - First Appeal to the FAA (Accountant General himself), citing §7(9) format obligation and Aditya Bandopadhyay on inspection rights. - Day 38 - FAA orders the PIO to release the noting copies and to expedite the pension within 15 days. - Day 41 - RTI reply re-issued with all 7 notings. The bottleneck was a pending signature from a deputy AG who had been on leave. - Day 49 - pension arrears credited to her account.

The same flow, adapted to your facts, can be drafted in 5 minutes using the AI RTI Drafter. Step-by-step screenshots are in how to file RTI online.

No. Section 3 grants the right “to all citizens”. OCI and PIO card holders, foreign nationals, foreign companies and foreign NGOs are excluded. A citizen friend or relative can file on their behalf without disclosing the underlying party.

Yes. Section 7(5) read with the Central RTI Rules 2012 (and matching State rules) waives both the application fee and the per-page cost for applicants Below Poverty Line, on production of a valid BPL certificate.

That is a “deemed refusal” under Section 7(2). You can file a First Appeal under §19(1) immediately. You also do not have to pay any further fee for the information when it is eventually supplied, because §7(6) treats late information as free.

No. The standard rate under the Central Rules is Rs 2 per A4 page for photocopying, plus actual postage. Any quote above that must be challenged in First Appeal as inconsistent with the rules.

Yes, but partly. Confidential reports may be subject to §8(1)(g) or §8(1)(j) balancing. The Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) settled that adverse ACR entries must be communicated to the officer.

Section 6(3) requires the PIO to transfer the application within 5 days to the public authority that actually holds the record, and to inform you. The 30-day clock then runs from the receiving authority's date of receipt, not from your original filing date.

Yes. All nationalised banks, RBI, NABARD, SIDBI, NHB and similar bodies are public authorities under §2(h). They have designated PIOs and FAAs and their second appeals lie with the CIC. Private banks are outside the Act unless substantially financed by government.

The CIC held in 2013 that six national political parties (Congress, BJP, CPI, CPI(M), NCP, BSP) are public authorities. The parties have refused to comply. A 2015 PIL is pending in the Supreme Court; until it decides, citizens can file but should expect non-compliance.

No. Section 6(2) bars asking for reasons. Identity is required only to the extent of a contact address for sending the reply. Insisting on Aadhaar, PAN or voter ID is contrary to the Act.

Section 19(3) gives 90 days from the FAA order, or from the date the FAA was supposed to decide and did not. The Commission can condone delay for sufficient cause. Beyond a year, condonation becomes uncertain; file early.

• RTI Act 2005 complete guide - section-by-section deep dive with sub-clauses
• Citizen RTI playbook - end-to-end filing workflow
• PIO and FAA officers handbook - duties, timelines, format
• File RTI online in India - portal screenshots
• RTI vs CPGRAMS vs Consumer Commission - choose the right remedy
• RTI case-law database - landmark and recent rulings

• Right to Information Act, 2005 (bare Act with amendments).
• Central RTI Rules, 2012.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3) (consequential amendment to §8(1)(j)).
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
• CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
• Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
• Aniruddha Bahal v. State, (2010) ILR 6 Delhi 631.

Last reviewed by the RTI Wiki editorial team: May 2026.