Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(section 7 rti act, rti 30 day reply, rti section 7 1, rti section 7 5 bpl, rti section 7 9 voluminous, 48 hour rti life liberty, rti disposal request)
+metatag-description=(Section 7 of the RTI Act — the 30-day response rule, 48-hour life-and-liberty proviso, BPL fee waiver, voluminous-change-of-form under 7(9). Full lawyer and practitioner reference with SC/CIC rulings.)}}
+====== Section 7 — Disposal of Request ======
+{{ :social:auto:act-section-7.png?direct&1200 |Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 — Disposal of Request}}
+{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**In one line:** Section 7 is the **clock** of the RTI Act. It binds the PIO to reply within **30 days** (48 hours for life and liberty, 40 days for third-party information under Section 11). It also governs fees, BPL waiver, speaking-order requirements, and the "voluminous" escape clause in 7(9).
+</WRAP>
+===== Key sub-sections =====
+  * **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.
+===== Legislative history =====
+  * **12 October 2005** — commenced.
+  * **No amendment** to Section 7 since.
+  * **2019 amendment** and **DPDP 2025** did not touch Section 7.
+===== Landmark rulings =====
+**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.
+===== The 48-hour proviso =====
+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.
+===== The 7(9) "voluminous" defeat =====
+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:
+<code>
+The PIO's reply purports to rely on Section 7(9) to refuse.
+Per CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, Section
+(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.
+</code>
+===== Fee structure under Section 7 =====
+  * **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(c)).
+  * **Fee waived** if PIO exceeds 30-day deadline (Section 7(6)).
+See [[:rti-fees-by-state|RTI Fees by State]] for State-specific variations.
+===== Call to action =====
+If your RTI has crossed day 30, invoke Section 7(6) and demand the information **free of charge**. Template paragraph in your first appeal:
+<code>
+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
+(8)(b) for the delay.
+</code>
+See the [[:templates:first-appeal|First Appeal template]].
+===== Related =====
+  * [[act|Back to the full RTI Act, 2005]]
+  * [[act:section-6|Section 6 — Request for information]]
+  * [[act:section-8|Section 8 — Exemptions]]
+  * [[act:section-19|Section 19 — Appeals]]
+  * [[act:section-11|Section 11 — Third-party information (40-day timeline)]]
+  * [[:rti-fees-by-state|RTI Fees by State]]
+  * [[:guide:applicant:application:procedure-for-inspection-under-rti|Inspection procedure]]
+  * [[:explanations:justification-for-denial-under-rti|Speaking-order requirement — Section 7(8)]]
+  * [[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]]
+===== Sources =====
+  - RTI Act, 2005, Section 7.
+  - RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.
+  - //CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
+  - //CIC v. State of Manipur//, (2011) 15 SCC 1.
+  - //Vasudev Pillai v. CPIO CBEC//, CIC (2015).
+  - //Ajay Kumar v. CBSE//, CIC (2012).
+//Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026//
+{{tag>rti act section-7 disposal timeline 30-days 48-hour bpl voluminous 2026}}

Was this helpful? — views