Paste the PIO's reply into the text box. In seconds the tool returns:

• A verdict — strong grounds for appeal, likely appealable, or legally sound.
• A findings list — each invalid-ground pattern identified, categorised by severity.
• Statutory + case-law authority for every finding.
• A concrete next-step action per finding — what to add to your appeal.
• Timeline block — when your RTI was filed, when the 30-day window expired, when your First Appeal is due.
• Direct CTA to the First Appeal Builder (Tool 2) when appeal is warranted.

All analysis runs in your browser. Nothing is sent to any server.

• §7(2) deemed refusal — date comparison between your RTI and the reply.
• §7(9) blanket refusal — “voluminous” / “disproportionate” without offering inspection.
• §8(1)(a) “Confidential” stamp cited without a harm-test.
• §8(1)(b) sub-judice cited without an express court order.
• §6(2) motive inquiry — PIO asking why you want the information.
• §7(8)(i) unreasoned refusal — boilerplate or bald order.

• §8(1)(d) commercial without identified third-party and harm.
• §8(1)(e) fiduciary applied to non-fiduciary records.
• §8(1)(h) investigation where the inquiry may be closed.
• §8(1)(i) cabinet for a decided matter.
• §8(1)(j) personal without §8(2) balancing (post-DPDP 2025).
• “Not information” dismissal without §5(3) assistance.
• §11 third-party procedure skipped.
• §10 severability missing (blanket refusal).
• Fee demand beyond statutory rates (Rs. 10 + Rs. 2/page).

• Inspection offered (correct under §7(9)).
• Specific harm-test cited.
• §10 severability applied.
• First Appellate Authority named.

• High-severity finding present → “Strong grounds for appeal”.
• Two or more medium findings → “Grounds for appeal likely”.
• One medium finding → “One questionable refusal”.
• Only positive signals → “Reply appears legally sound”.
• Nothing matched → “No automatic triggers” — manual review required.

The verdict is a heuristic — a well-reasoned PIO order can pass all 18 checks and still be factually wrong. Conversely, the tool may flag a reply that is actually valid. Always read the findings and use your judgement.

1. RTI Question Builder → map your problem to records.
2. RTI Application Generator → produce the RTI letter.
3. PIO reply arrives → paste it into this tool.
4. First Appeal Builder → draft the §19(1) appeal.

All four tools are client-side and privacy-safe.

Below the static findings, the tool offers an opt-in AI deep analysis — free to use as of now, no sign-up, no API key. It runs entirely in your browser via WebLLM — nothing is sent to any server.

The tool now lets you pick one of three open-source Large Language Models:

• Qwen 2.5 0.5B — ~330 MB first-time download. Fastest. Basic quality; good for a quick second opinion.
• Llama 3.2 1B (default) — ~720 MB. Balanced speed and quality. The recommended starting point.
• Llama 3.2 3B — ~1.8 GB. Slower first download but produces the most detailed analysis.

After the one-time download, the browser caches the model. Subsequent runs are instant.

Reads the PIO reply, identifies §8(1) clauses invoked, assesses validity of each, drafts specific appeal grounds with statutory and case-law authorities, and recommends the next step.

• WebGPU — Chrome 113+, Edge, or a WebGPU-capable browser. Available on most computers made after 2017. Safari / Firefox support is experimental.
• Not legal advice. A small LLM can miss subtleties or hallucinate. Treat the output as a second opinion and cross-check against Grounds for RTI rejection and the static findings above.
• Privacy. The pasted reply stays on your device. The model's weights come from a public CDN; your text never leaves the browser.
• “Free as of now” means exactly that — the model is free open source, the inference is on your GPU so it costs us nothing, and we reserve the right to revisit if this changes.

• Qwen 2.5 — by Alibaba Qwen.
• Llama 3.2 — by Meta under the Llama community licence.
• Quantization — by the MLC AI team.
• Runtime — WebLLM (Apache-2.0).

• The static checks run on pattern matching, not full legal reasoning. A well-drafted PIO order may defeat a weak regex; a sloppy order may contain valid grounds the tool misses.
• The AI deep analysis is a convenience, not a substitute for legal expertise. A small LLM can hallucinate or miss subtle points.
• The tool does not carry over state to the First Appeal Builder — you'll paste the reply again there (a future upgrade will wire them up).
• For sophisticated cases (complex §8(2) balancing, multi-party §11 scenarios, Schedule-II §24 agencies), consult a qualified RTI advocate. See our PIO / FAA knowledge base for the underlying framework.

• First Appeal Builder
• RTI Application Generator
• RTI Question Builder
• Grounds for RTI rejection
• PIO Framework — §8(1)(j) after DPDP
• §7(9) alternative form — not a ground
• FAA appellate-review checklist
• First Appeal timelines
• Privacy vs public-interest balancing
• PIO RTI Reply Guide

• Right to Information Act, 2005 — §§ 6(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(8)(i), 7(9), 8(1), 8(2), 10, 11, 19, 20
• RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3) amending RTI §8(1)(j)
• Supreme Court: S.P. Gupta (1982), Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), ICAI v. Shaunak Satya (2011), R.K. Jain (2013), Namit Sharma (2013), RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016), Puttaswamy (2017)
• High Courts: Carbon Resources (Kerala), Muniyappan (Madras), S. Venkatesan (Madras), S. Mukherjee (Calcutta), Treesa Irish (Kerala), Shailesh Gandhi (Bombay), GMC Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala), C.V. Srinivasa (Karnataka)

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.