Right to Information Wiki
RTI vs CPGRAMS — when to use which?

RTI gets you information; CPGRAMS gets you action on a grievance. Many citizens confuse them. The right tool for the right ask.

RTI vs CPGRAMS — when to use which?

⚠️ DPDP Rules, 2025 (14 Nov 2025) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act — public-interest override now under Section 8(2). Read the note →

· 2026/04/19 05:02

TL;DR. CPGRAMS is for grievance redressal — “fix my problem” (delayed pension, broken streetlight, lost passport file). RTI is for information — “tell me what happened, who decided, when”. Filing the wrong one wastes time. Often, file both for maximum pressure.

Compared

Aspect RTI CPGRAMS
Statutory backing RTI Act 2005 DARPG resolution
Goal Get information Get action
Reply guarantee 30 days §7(1) “reasonable time” (no statutory deadline)
Cost Rs 10 Free
Forum PIO / FAA / CIC/SIC Department officer / nodal officer
Penalty teeth §20 — Rs 250/day on PIO Closure rate metric only
Best for Investigation, paper-trail, accountability Routine service delivery

Hybrid strategy (works best)

File both the same day:

  1. CPGRAMS at pgportal.gov.in — gets routed to a nodal officer with internal pressure
  2. RTI under §6 — creates a statutory paper trail and 30-day deadline

When the RTI reply comes, you have institutional facts. When CPGRAMS closure comes, you have action. Combined: action + accountability.

Examples

  • Delayed pension → CPGRAMS (push payment) + RTI (file location, who held it)
  • Broken streetlight → CPGRAMS (fix it) + RTI (maintenance contract)
  • RTE admission denied → CPGRAMS (review) + RTI (lottery records)

Decision matrix — when to use which

Both options are tools — pick based on what you're trying to achieve:

  • Use the first option if you need: speed, simplicity, full statutory backing, formal record.
  • Use the second option if you need: lower cost (free / minimal), softer push, action over information.
  • Combine both for maximum pressure when statutory deadline is approaching.

Real-life parallel example

A citizen with a stuck pension claim filed:

  1. CPGRAMS at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push
  2. RTI under §6 of the RTI Act 2005 for the file noting + officer-holding-the-file
  3. Lokpal/Lokayukta complaint after RTI revealed a pattern of malafide delay

The CPGRAMS got the pension paid. The RTI gave the paper trail. The Lokayukta complaint led to disciplinary action against the responsible officer. Three tools, one outcome.

Citizen action steps

  1. Map your need — information vs action vs accountability.
  2. Pick the tool — RTI for information, CPGRAMS for action, Lokayukta for accountability.
  3. Use parallel filings — they reinforce each other, especially when the statutory deadline is approaching.
  4. Track everything — use Timeline Tracker for §7(1) + §19 deadlines.

Citations and sources

  • Right to Information Act, 2005 — full text
  • Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 — when accountability is the goal
  • CPGRAMS — pgportal.gov.in (DARPG)
  • Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (2019) 9 SCC 199 — IC accountability

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.

, , , ,