RTI Act 2005 Explained Simply — citizen guide 2026

The Right to Information Act, 2005 lets an Indian citizen request existing information held by, or under the control of, a public authority. Ask for records—orders, file notings, registers, reports, certified copies, inspection or electronic data—not an officer's new opinion or a promise to solve your grievance. A normal request is decided within 30 days, subject to the Act's special rules and exemptions.

This is the plain-language walkthrough: what the Act actually gives you, who may file, which clocks are in the statute, how exemptions and severability work, and the numbered how-to from draft to second appeal. Every section number below is from the Act itself. Do not invent extra sections. For a longer clause-by-clause text see the complete RTI Act guide. For screenshots of the portals see how to file RTI online and the citizen playbook. Officers should use the PIO and FAA handbook.

Section 2(f) defines “information” broadly to include material in records, documents, memos, emails, opinions or advice already recorded, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models and electronic data. It also covers information relating to a private body that a public authority can access under another law.

Section 2(j) describes the right to inspect work, documents and records; take notes or certified copies; take certified material samples; and obtain information electronically or in other available forms.

Section 2(h) is the “public authority” test: the government, Parliament and State legislatures, local authorities, bodies established by the Constitution or by law, bodies owned or controlled or substantially financed by government, and non-government organisations substantially financed. The Supreme Court explained “substantially financed” in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82. A private company is not automatically covered because it is famous or because it took one government grant.

Section 22 says the Act has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law, including the Official Secrets Act, 1923. That override still operates subject to the exemptions in the RTI Act itself.

RTI is not a mechanism to force an officer to:

• create a fresh explanation that is not on record;
• answer a hypothetical question;
• justify conduct in their own words;
• resolve a pension, road, scholarship or banking grievance merely because you filed RTI;
• conduct research or compile data that the authority does not hold in the requested form.

Ask for the record behind the decision. Instead of “Why is my pension delayed?”, ask for the dated movement sheet, deficiency memo, officer-wise pendency and the rule or order relied on.

Section 3 gives the right to information to citizens. Section 6(1) allows a written or electronic request in English, Hindi or the official language of the area, with particulars of the information sought. The applicant is not required to give reasons for seeking it; section 6(2) limits personal details to those necessary for contacting the applicant.

A company, society or NGO is not a citizen. The practical workaround is that a citizen office-bearer files in their own name. An NRI who remains an Indian citizen retains the right. OCI / foreign-national standing is not created by this page.

Address the request to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) for a Central public authority or the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) for a State public authority. An Assistant PIO can receive applications in situations covered by the Act. See CPIO versus PIO versus APIO.

If the application reaches a public authority that does not hold the information but knows another public authority holds it or is more closely connected, section 6(3) requires transfer of the relevant part as soon as practicable and no later than five days, with notice to the applicant. This is not a licence to send a vague request to any office. The receiving authority’s clock then runs from its receipt of the transferred request.

Section 5 requires every public authority to designate PIOs. Section 5(2) allows Assistant PIOs whose job is to receive and forward. Section 5(4) lets a PIO seek help from another officer; section 5(5) treats that helper as a PIO for penalty purposes. The First Appellate Authority is the officer senior in rank to the PIO; it is not a separate “designation exam”. Public authorities must publish the FAA under the proactive-disclosure list in section 4(1)(b).

1. Name the public authority that actually holds the record. Ministry, department, PSU, municipality, university, public-sector bank. Guessing the wrong office wastes the transfer window.
2. Write a list of existing records, not “why” questions. File number, date range, movement sheet, deficiency memo, order, circular, inspection report. One subject per application is easier to answer.
3. Address it to the CPIO or SPIO. Use the authority’s RTI page or the Central RTI Online portal where the public authority participates. State portals differ; pay the method that State’s rules name. See State-wise RTI fees.
4. Pay the application fee under the applicable rules. For many Central authorities the RTI Rules, 2012 prescribe ₹10. States notify their own rates and instruments. Section 7(5) waives fee for below-poverty-line applicants who produce the proof those rules require. Never post cash to a payee copied from a blog.
5. Keep filing proof: portal registration number, Speed Post acknowledgement, or e-IPO receipt. The 30-day clock in section 7(1) runs from receipt by the PIO, not from the day you typed the draft.
6. If a further-fee notice arrives under section 7(3), pay only the calculated copying or inspection charge, or appeal if the calculation is wrong. Time taken to pay is excluded from the reply clock.
7. If there is no decision in time, treat it as deemed refusal under section 7(2) and file the first appeal. Do not wait for a reminder culture to eat the appeal window.
8. If the reply is incomplete, over-redacted or silent on appeal rights, first appeal under section 19(1). See the first-appeal guide and speaking-order format.
9. If the FAA fails you, second appeal under section 19(3) to the CIC or SIC. See the second-appeal checklist.

Use the AI RTI Drafter to organise wording, then check the authority, dates and fee yourself.

Do not label every urgent grievance “life or liberty”. State the direct connection and attach available proof. The PIO decides the request under the Act, and an appeal can challenge the decision.

Use the Timeline Tracker as a calculation aid, but verify dates from your receipt and the Act.

For Central public authorities, the RTI Rules, 2012 prescribe the application and copying fee framework. State public authorities follow their own notified State rules, which may use different payment methods or rates.

Section 7(5) exempts applicants below the poverty line from the fee, subject to the required proof under the applicable rules. Section 7(3) requires a further-fee notice to give the calculation and inform the applicant of review rights. Section 7(6) makes delayed information free when the authority misses the statutory time limit.

A further-fee demand of “₹1,000 for a few pages” is not automatically lawful. Central copying is commonly ₹2 per A4 page plus actual postage under those rules; challenge an unexplained lump sum in first appeal rather than paying a guessed amount into a personal account.

Never send cash or an Indian Postal Order to a payee guessed from an unofficial blog. Check the authority's RTI page, the official RTI Online portal for participating Central authorities, or the State rule reference before payment.

Sections 8 and 9 contain exemptions and a copyright-related ground for rejection of access. The ten heads in section 8(1), in the statute’s own order, are:

1. 8(1)(a) sovereignty, integrity, security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, and similar listed State interests;
2. 8(1)(b) information expressly forbidden by a court or whose disclosure would be 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 a larger public interest warrants disclosure;
5. 8(1)(e) information available in a fiduciary relationship, unless a larger 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 life or physical safety, or identify a confidential source;
8. 8(1)(h) information that would impede investigation, 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 the statute’s release-after-decision proviso;
10. 8(1)(j) personal information under the current statutory text.

Section 9 adds a copyright ground where disclosure would involve a third party’s copyrighted material.

Three safeguards matter:

• A PIO should identify the clause relied on and give appeal details under section 7(8).
• Section 10 requires severability: exempt portions can be removed and the non-exempt remainder supplied when the record can reasonably be separated.
• Section 8(2) contains a public-interest override subject to its terms.

Do not cite an old summary of section 8(1)(j) without checking the current India Code text. Privacy law and the statutory wording have changed; use the text in force on the date of decision. Do not invent an extra exemption number.

Section 24 excludes certain intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule, with a proviso for allegations of corruption and human-rights violations. That proviso is not a general 45-day shortcut for ordinary files.

To: The CPIO/SPIO, [public authority]
Subject: Request under section 6(1), RTI Act, 2005

Please provide the following existing records for [file/application ID]:

1. Certified copy of the complete movement sheet from [date] to [date].
2. Certified copy of every deficiency memo or objection recorded on the file.
3. Certified copy of the rule, order or circular applied to the decision.
4. Name and designation shown in the record for each officer who handled it,
   with the dates shown in the movement record.
5. If any part is exempt, provide the non-exempt part under section 10 and
   identify the exemption clause relied on.
6. If another public authority holds an item, transfer that part under
   section 6(3) and inform me.

Fee: [official method under the applicable rules]
Name, postal address, date and signature

Section 19(1) allows a first appeal to an officer senior to the CPIO/SPIO when no decision arrives within the section 7 period or the applicant is aggrieved by the decision. The normal filing period is 30 days from expiry of the response period or receipt of the decision; delay can be admitted for sufficient cause.

Section 19(6) requires an appeal under section 19(1) or 19(2) to be disposed of in 30 days, extendable to a total of 45 days for reasons recorded in writing. This provision is about the first-appeal stage, not a promise that an Information Commission will decide a second appeal in 30 days.

Attach the RTI, proof of filing, reply, fee correspondence and a point-by-point explanation. The First Appeal Builder can structure it. The FAA can confirm, modify or set aside the PIO’s decision and direct disclosure. The FAA cannot impose a section 20 penalty; only the Information Commission can.

If the PIO stays silent, that is deemed refusal under section 7(2). File the first appeal rather than sending a fourth reminder. See no-reply escalation.

Section 19(3) provides a second appeal to the CIC or SIC within 90 days from the date the first-appeal decision should have been made or was actually received. The Commission may admit a late appeal for sufficient cause.

Choose the Commission according to the public authority. Section 19(5) places the onus of proving a denial justified on the PIO in an appeal. Section 19(8) lists the Commission's powers, including ordering access, requiring a PIO to be appointed, directing section 4 publication, and compensation for proven loss or detriment under section 19(8)(b). See the complete second-appeal checklist.

Under section 20(1), the Commission may impose ₹250 for each day of specified default until the application is received or information furnished, capped at ₹25,000, after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The section lists grounds such as refusal to receive an application, delay without reasonable cause, mala fide denial, knowingly incorrect or misleading information, destruction of requested information or obstruction.

Section 20(2) allows a recommendation for disciplinary action in persistent or specified serious cases. An applicant may ask the Commission to consider section 20, but cannot declare guilt or promise that a penalty will follow. Compensation to an applicant under section 19(8)(b) is a different remedy. The burden of showing reasonable cause is on the PIO.

A common mistake is to file RTI when you want an officer to do something, or a refund.

Decide before you file. A longer comparison is at RTI versus other remedies. Cyber-fraud money is a 1930 and bank track, not an RTI refund. Pension or EPF delay still benefits from an RTI that asks for the movement sheet, plus a grievance that asks for release.

In CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019 judgment; reported as (2020) 5 SCC 481), the Supreme Court examined the relationship between access, privacy and exemptions and reiterated that the right applies to information held by or under the control of a public authority. The judgment also discusses earlier RTI decisions, including CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497, which is the usual citation for an examinee’s access to existing evaluated material rather than a fiduciary wall.

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 rejected a blanket fiduciary shield for the regulator’s bank-inspection material. Thalappalam remains the usual citation for when a cooperative or similarly financed body is, or is not, a public authority.

The practical lesson is simple: RTI gives access to covered information; it does not require a public authority to create material it does not hold, and it operates subject to the Act's exemptions and public-interest tests. Browse more rulings in the case-law database.

A family pension has not moved. Four letters produced no reply. RTI is useful if you ask the Accountant General or the pension-disbursing public authority for existing records: the file number’s movement sheet, every deficiency memo, the rule applied, and the designations shown against each date. File under section 6(1), pay the applicable fee, keep proof. If the PIO answers “under process” without the notings, that incompleteness is a first-appeal fact under section 19(1), not a reason to invent a 15-day statutory pension clock. If the FAA directs disclosure of the notings, you still need the department’s payment process to credit the account. RTI produced the paper; it did not itself pay the arrears. Adapt the sample request above. Do not treat a story-book Day-49 credit as a rule.

• Asking twenty “why” questions instead of naming records.
• Filing with the wrong public authority and relying on transfer.
• Requesting unlimited records without a date, file or subject boundary.
• Sending the wrong State fee method to a Central authority or vice versa.
• Treating CPGRAMS as an RTI application or RTI as a grievance order.
• Missing the first- or second-appeal deadline while sending reminders.
• Demanding personal opinions, legal interpretations or creation of a report.
• Posting unredacted RTI replies containing personal information online.
• Insisting the PIO take Aadhaar or PAN when section 6(2) only needs contact details.

Section 3 gives the right to citizens. An organisation can help prepare a request, but the applicant exercising the right should be an Indian citizen.

No. Section 6(2) says reasons are not required, and personal details should be limited to what is necessary for contact.

Thirty days is the normal rule. The Act has special timings for life or liberty, APIO receipt and third-party procedure.

Section 7(2) treats absence of a decision within the applicable period as deemed refusal, enabling the appeal route.

You can ask for a recorded reason, note or order. The authority need not create a fresh explanation that is not held in its records.

Section 10 requires consideration of severing the exempt part and providing the reasonably separable remainder.

Section 7(6) says information is provided free when the public authority fails to comply with the time limit in section 7(1).

No. The Commission applies section 20, hears the PIO and considers reasonable cause. The cap is not an automatic award to the applicant.

Nationalised banks and SBI are typically public authorities under section 2(h) and have designated PIOs. A private bank is outside the Act unless it meets the public-authority test. Ask for records, not a new loan decision.

Section 19(3) gives 90 days from the FAA decision or from the date it should have been made. The Commission can condone delay for sufficient cause. File early.

Keep a one-page checklist with: citizen applicant, correct authority, exact records, date range, section 6(1), fee method, filing proof, response deadline, first appeal, second appeal, section 10 request and privacy redactions. For examples, use The RTI Playbook.

• RTI Act 2005 complete guide
• Citizen RTI playbook
• File RTI online in India
• RTI for beginners
• RTI first appeal
• RTI second appeal to CIC or SIC
• FAA speaking-order format
• CPIO, PIO and APIO
• State-wise RTI fees
• RTI versus CPGRAMS versus Consumer Commission
• File a CPGRAMS grievance
• PIO and FAA officers handbook
• RTI case-law database
• No-reply escalation
• Track an RTI appeal safely

• DoPT — Right to Information Act and amended official text
• DoPT Citizen Gateway for RTI
• RTI Online for participating Central public authorities
• Central Information Commission frequently asked questions
• CIC second-appeal filing guidelines
• Supreme Court — CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal judgment