Right to Information Wiki Blog
What Indians file RTI applications about — the subjects filed, satisfied, and appealed
An evaluatory note on the subject-matter pattern of Right to Information applications in India. Drawn from the annual reports of the Department of Personnel and Training, the published reports of the Satark Nagrik Sangathan, and the case-law line at the Central Information Commission and the Supreme Court. The note is for applicants, Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities, and researchers who want to see where the Act works, where it stops, and why.
In one line. Indians file the largest share of their RTI applications on service matters, land records, pensions and retirement benefits, police and FIR matters, and education. The Public Information Officer typically gives a satisfactory reply on applications for the applicant's own record (service book, pension file, income tax refund, marksheet verification, FIR copy, sanction order for a specific licence). Applications that most often end up in appeal before the Commission turn on Section 8(1)(j) personal information, Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary, Section 8(1)(h) pending investigation, file notings, “no such record” refusals, and on records of political, regulatory, and judicial bodies. The 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) will change the shape of the appeal volume in the next two years.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 — a decade of change, 2015 to 2025
An evaluatory account of how the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been altered between 2015 and 2025 by Parliament, the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the Information Commissions, and by the wider public data-protection regime. The note is for practitioners, Public Information Officers, First Appellate Authorities, Commissioners, journalists, and citizens who want a single place to follow the arc of change and its implications for day-to-day working of the Act.
In one line. Between 2015 and 2025, the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been changed by two statutes (the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the DPDP Act, 2023 in force from 14 November 2025), by one Constitution Bench judgment that redrew the line on personal information and fiduciary claims (CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2020), by the Supreme Court direction on filling Commission vacancies (Anjali Bhardwaj, 2019), by a line of High Court rulings on the reach of the Act into academic and regulatory records, and by the Electoral Bonds judgment (ADR v. Union of India, 2024) that re-anchored the constitutional basis of the right to know. The composition and pendency of the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions, and their interaction with the new personal-information regime, will shape the next decade of practice.
Section 8(1)(j) Reply: 5-Question PIO Test
A practitioner note on how a Public Information Officer is to decide an application that engages personal information after the notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025. Covers the substantive test, the entries to be recorded on the file, and the drafting of the reply. The note is for Central Government use. State-level practitioners should read the note with the rules in force in the relevant State. The note is to be read with the template at PIO reply with severability and with the earlier practitioner note at DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Discussion