• 7(1) — reply within 30 days; 48 hours for information concerning life or liberty.
• 7(1) proviso — if the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, reply within 48 hours.
• 7(3) — fee intimation must be given before further fee is charged.
• 7(5) — BPL applicants pay no fee.
• 7(6) — if reply is delayed, information must be given free (fee waiver as penalty for delay).
• 7(7) — representation by applicant on fee is to be considered.
• 7(8) — any rejection must be a speaking order with sub-clause, reasons, and appellate details.
• 7(9) — information must be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources or be detrimental to safety of records.

• 12 October 2005 — commenced.
• No amendment to Section 7 since.
• 2019 amendment and DPDP 2025 did not touch Section 7.

Supreme Court:

• CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — Section 7(9) permits change of form (e.g. inspection instead of copies) but does not permit outright refusal. Voluminous records are still disclosable.
• Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 — Section 7(8) requires application of mind and reasoned speaking order for each refusal.

High Courts:

• Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. R.S. Misra, Delhi HC (2017) — Section 7 deadlines apply to all public authorities including the Supreme Court (administrative side).

CIC:

• Vasudev Pillai v. CPIO, CBEC, CIC (2015) — the first hour of inspection remains free even if the applicant stays for less than one hour; only subsequent full hours attract Rs 5.
• Ajay Kumar v. CBSE, CIC (2012) — Section 7(6) operates automatically; the PIO cannot refuse the free-of-cost disclosure after 30-day lapse.
• Shail Sahni v. CPIO, CIC (2013) — inspection under Section 2(j)(i) flows from Section 7; denial is appealable.

Life-and-liberty information — e.g. a patient seeking their own medical records from a government hospital, an undertrial seeking their own case record, a family tracing a missing person through police records — must be provided within 48 hours under Section 7(1) proviso.

Draft the subject line as: “RTI Application under Section 7(1) proviso — URGENT, information concerns life and liberty of [name]”. Include a paragraph explaining why.

PIOs routinely refuse by citing Section 7(9) — “disproportionate diversion of resources”. Post CBSE v. Aditya, this is not a refusal ground. Section 7(9) only allows the PIO to change the form of disclosure — typically, offer inspection rather than photocopies.

Your counter-paragraph in the first appeal:

The PIO's reply purports to rely on Section 7(9) to refuse.
Per CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, Section
7(9) does not authorise refusal; only a change of form. The
appellant agrees to inspection under Section 2(j)(i) and will
identify pages for certified copies at Rs 2 per A4.

• Rs 10 application fee (Rule 3 of RTI Fees Rules, 2005).
• Nil for BPL applicants under 7(5).
• Rs 2 per A4 photocopy (Rule 4(a)).
• First hour inspection free, Rs 5 per subsequent hour (Rule 4(b)).
• Rs 50 per diskette or CD (Rule 4©).
• Fee waived if PIO exceeds 30-day deadline (Section 7(6)).

See RTI Fees by State for State-specific variations.

If your RTI has crossed day 30, invoke Section 7(6) and demand the information free of charge. Template paragraph in your first appeal:

The PIO has failed to respond within 30 days as required by
Section 7(1). By operation of Section 7(6), the information
is to be provided free of any further charge. The appellant
is entitled to the same remedy AND to costs under Section
19(8)(b) for the delay.

See the First Appeal template.

• Back to the full RTI Act, 2005
• Section 6 — Request for information
• Section 8 — Exemptions
• Section 19 — Appeals
• Section 11 — Third-party information (40-day timeline)
• RTI Fees by State
• Inspection procedure
• Speaking-order requirement — Section 7(8)
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay

1. RTI Act, 2005, Section 7.
2. RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.
3. CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
4. CIC v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1.
5. Vasudev Pillai v. CPIO CBEC, CIC (2015).
6. Ajay Kumar v. CBSE, CIC (2012).

Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026