Table of Contents
Blog
If your last RTI was rejected. See Why RTI Applications Get Rejected in India — and How to Avoid It. Five reasons, the exact fix for each, and two case studies of rejected RTIs corrected on appeal.
Editorial notes on legislative changes, major judgments, Commission orders, and practitioner issues under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Posts are published as matters are notified and are reviewed periodically.
New to RTI? Start with the three most-used guides on this site:
Scope
The blog covers the following categories.
- Legislative changes. Amendments to the Act, rules notified under it, and allied legislation that touches the right to information.
- Judgments. Decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the Information Commissions that refine the working of the Act.
- Commission orders. Orders of administrative significance from the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions.
- Practitioner notes. Notes on drafting, appeals, penalties, third-party procedure, and recurring grounds of rejection.
- Status of the Commissions. Composition, pendency, and functioning of the Central and State Information Commissions.
Recent posts
Section 20 PIO penalty — when Rs 250/day applies
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005 empowers the Central / State Information Commission to impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay, subject to a cap of Rs 25,000, on a Public Information Officer who (a) refuses to receive an RTI application, (b) fails to respond within Section 7(1), © malafidely denies information, (d) provides incorrect / incomplete / misleading information, or (e) destroys information. The penalty is recovered from the PIO's personal salary. Section 20(2) additionally empowers the Commission to recommend disciplinary action. Hearing opportunity under the proviso is mandatory; due-diligence is a defence.
RTI against a government officer — can they retaliate?
Legally, no. A public servant cannot retaliate against an RTI applicant — Section 6(2) of the RTI Act bars the PIO from even asking the applicant's motive, let alone taking adverse action based on it. Multiple protective layers exist: Section 20 PIO penalty for obstruction, Whistleblowers Protection Act 2014 for corruption disclosures, Section 8(1)(g) identity protection where disclosure endangers safety, and High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Practical retaliation is rare; this post explains both the law and the signals that tell you whether to worry.
RTI timelines cheat-sheet — every deadline in one table
Eight statutory clocks govern an RTI from filing to Second Appeal: 30 days (PIO disposal), 48 hours (life-and-liberty), 5 days (§6(3) transfer), 10 days (§11 third-party notice), 30 days (First Appeal filing), 30+15=45 days (FAA disposal), 90 days (Second Appeal filing), Rs 250/day delay penalty. A PIO who misses the 30-day window must supply information free of further charge; an FAA's silence beyond 45 days is directly appealable. Every applicant and every PIO should keep this one-page table taped above their desk.
First Appeal vs Second Appeal — the RTI appeal chain explained
A First Appeal under Section 19(1) is heard by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) — an officer one rank above the PIO, within the same public authority — within 30 days of the PIO's decision. A Second Appeal under Section 19(3) is heard by the Central or State Information Commission within 90 days of the FAA's decision. The First Appeal is mandatory and intermediate; the Second Appeal is the final administrative remedy. Writ petition to the High Court under Article 226 follows only when the Commission's order is legally flawed.
How DPDP 2025 changed RTI — a before/after guide
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was substituted by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 — effective from the date the DPDP Rules, 2025 were notified (14 November 2025). The clause now exempts personal information of any person without the earlier “larger public interest” proviso. The override has moved to Section 8(2). Section 20 penalties, Section 7(1) timelines, the Section 11 third-party procedure and appellate architecture are unchanged.
10 Supreme Court rulings every PIO and FAA must know (2026 edition)
Ten Supreme Court decisions anchor the working PIO's daily toolkit — from Aditya Bandopadhyay's narrowing of the Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary exemption to the 2024 Electoral Bonds judgment's reaffirmation of the citizen's right to know political funding. A PIO or FAA who can cite these from memory drafts a reasoned order that survives First Appeal and the Commission. Each ruling below carries its citation, the Section it turns on, and the practical drafting takeaway.
Why You Should Not Fear Personal-Information RTI Queries — A Guide for Government Officers (2026)
In one line. When an RTI application targets you personally — your attendance, the files you have signed, your tours, complaints against you — the law protects you with five layers: §8(1)(j) (personal information), §11 (third-party procedure and your right to be heard), §8(1)(g) (danger to life / safety), §8(1)(e) (service-fiduciary for evaluative data), and §8(1)(h) (ongoing investigation). You are not helpless. You are a statutory third party with the right to object.
This guide explains, for each of the four most common hostile questions, what is legally disclosable, what is not, how to respond as a third party under §11, how to guide the PIO, and what the organisation should do institutionally.
How to Write an RTI Application: Ask for Records, Not Answers
In one line. If you want to know how to write an RTI application that works, write it to request records that exist — not answers, not explanations, not “why.” This single shift fixes most rejections. The rest of this piece shows you how, from someone who has read thousands of replies.
RTI This Week — News Roundup, 14 to 21 April 2026
About this roundup. Every week, this page collects the most important news, court rulings, Information Commission decisions, and editorial commentary on the Right to Information Act, 2005. Each item carries a source link, a one-paragraph plain-English explanation, a brief legal interpretation, and pointers to the relevant articles on this wiki where you can go deeper.
Disclaimer. Items are drawn from publicly reported sources. Quotations and figures cited are paraphrased; readers are encouraged to consult the original article for the precise wording. This page is not legal advice. For decision-specific guidance, consult an advocate or refer to our Disclaimer.
This week's headline. A combination of three Central Information Commission orders and a Supreme Court intervention has put the RTI machinery back in the news — even as commentary mounts on the post-DPDP-2025 narrowing of Section 8(1)(j) and the persistent backlog crisis at State Information Commissions.
10 Most Unique RTI Applications in India That Will Change How You Think About Transparency
Disclaimer (please read).
- The stories below are based on publicly reported RTI cases in mainstream Indian media.
- The selection of “unique” or “interesting” is a subjective editorial choice for education and awareness.
- The purpose is to inform and inspire, not to mock individuals, institutions, or political actors.
- Readers are encouraged to visit the source links for full context.
Full archive
For the complete list of posts, see the blog archive.
Related
- Templates. Ready-to-use drafts for applicants, Public Information Officers, and First Appellate Authorities.
- Case law library. Landmark decisions indexed by section.
- Live tracker. Current composition of the Central Information Commission, pendency figures, and recent notifications.
Last reviewed on
19 April 2026
Discussion