1. Step 1 — The original RTI. Date, PIO office, reference number, and the questions you asked.
2. Step 2 — What the PIO did. Paste the reply text (if any). Or flag a deemed refusal if no reply arrived.
3. Step 3 — Grounds of appeal. The builder scans the reply for 13 common invalid-ground patterns — each linked to statute and case law. You can tick, un-tick, and add your own grounds.
4. Step 4 — Your details. Name, address, FAA contact (optional). The builder generates a complete Section 19(1) appeal letter with facts, grounds, relief sought, and enclosures list — ready to copy, download, or print.

• Deemed refusal (§7(2)) — when the PIO missed the 30-day window or did not reply at all.
• §7(9) blanket refusal — “voluminous” / “disproportionate” without offering inspection.
• “Confidential” stamp cited under §8(1)(a) without a harm test.
• Sub-judice as a ground under §8(1)(b) without an express court order.
• §8(1)(d) invoked without third-party competitive-harm analysis.
• §8(1)(e) fiduciary applied to non-fiduciary records — Aditya Bandopadhyay, Jayantilal Mistry.
• §8(1)(h) investigation invoked where the inquiry is closed.
• §8(1)(i) cabinet invoked for a decided matter — R.K. Jain.
• §8(1)(j) personal without §8(2) balancing — post-DPDP-2025 framework.
• “Not information” dismissal without §5(3) reasonable assistance.
• Motive / reason asked — bar under §6(2).
• Blanket refusal without §10 severability.
• Third-party grounds without §11 procedure.
• Unreasoned refusal — violation of §7(8)(i).

Each detected ground comes with its specific statutory citation and relevant Supreme Court / High Court authority. You review the list and edit what you want to keep.

• No filing fee. The First Appeal is free.
• Same public authority, senior officer. The FAA is typically one rank above the PIO, within the same office.
• 30 days to decide (extendable by 15 days with reasons) under §19(6).
• Higher remedies. The FAA can direct disclosure (§19(8)(a)), award compensation (§19(8)(b)), impose costs (§19(8)©), and recommend penalty on the PIO to the Information Commission.

• File within 30 days of receiving the PIO's reply (or of the expiry of the PIO's 30-day window, for deemed refusals).
• Condonation of delay is permitted under §19(1) proviso only where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause — plead this explicitly if you are late.

Full procedural detail: First Appeal timelines and FAA appellate-review checklist.

• Grounds for RTI rejection — all 10 valid refusals — what a PIO can and cannot refuse.
• §8(1)(j) after DPDP — post-14-November-2025 analysis.
• §7(9) alternative form — not a ground — the PIO cannot refuse on volume alone.
• Privacy vs public interest balancing — §8(2) override.

• File a Second Appeal under §19(3) within 90 days, to the State or Central Information Commission. Still free.
• Section 20 penalty — the Commission can impose up to Rs. 25,000 on the PIO personally.

Found a detection rule that missed your case? Spotted a typo in the generated letter? Please report it at our corrections page — we fix most feedback within 48 hours.

• RTI Application Generator
• First Appeal timelines
• FAA appellate-review checklist
• §19(8) FAA powers
• Privacy vs public interest
• Grounds for RTI rejection
• PIO RTI Reply Guide
• First Appeal Guide
• Section 19 — Appeals
• Section 20 — Penalties

• Right to Information Act, 2005 — §§ 6(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(8)(i), 7(9), 8(1), 8(2), 10, 11, 19, 20
• Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012 — Central
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 — §44(3) amending RTI §8(1)(j)
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 5 SCC 136
• R.K. Jain v. UoI, (2013) 14 SCC 794
• Namit Sharma v. UoI, (2013) 1 SCC 745
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. UoI, (2017) 10 SCC 1
• S. Venkatesan v. CIC (Madras HC, 2016)
• C. Muniyappan v. State of TN (Madras HC, 2013)
• Treesa Irish v. CPIO (Kerala HC, 2010)
• Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC (Bombay HC, 2013)

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.