Important Sections, Time Limits and Court cases regarding Right to Information Act

Right to Information Act

Important Sections Summary    

Important Section	Section Description	Explanation/Remarks
Section- 2 (f)	Information	Means any material in any form, including Records, Documents, Memos, e-mails, Opinions, Advices, Press releases, Circulars, Orders, Logbooks, Contracts, Reports, Papers, Samples, Models, Data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force.
Section- 2 (i)	Records	Citation/ Guideline pertaining to Section Sec.2 (i) & 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi , in LPA 24/2015 & CM No.965/2015,The Registrar, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Versus COMMODORE LOKESH K. BATRA & ORS. Clarifies that..... Paragraph No.15.-On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant.
Section- 2 (j)	Right to Information	Citation/ Guideline pertaining to Section Sec.2 (f) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 Important Judgment - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009], Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. in which it was held as under:- Paragraph 35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of "information" and "right to information" under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide "advice" or "opinion" to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any "opinion" or "advice" to an applicant. The reference to "opinion" or "advice" in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.
Section- 2 (n)	Third Party	Disclosure of Third Party Information Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, is exempt from disclosure. Such information should not be disclosed unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.In regard to a third party information which the third party has treated as confidential, the Public Information Officer should follow the procedure as given in the chapter ‘For public information officers’. The third party should be given full opportunity to put his case for non-disclosure if he desires that the information should not be disclosed.
Section- 4	Responsibilities of Public Authority	Clarification of Section 4 Of the RTI Act The RTI Act not only requires governments to provide information upon request, it also imposes a duty on public authorities to actively disclose, disseminate and publish information, as widely as possible. The RTI 2005 also requires all public authorities covered under the law to publish suo motu or proactively a wide range of information on their own, even if no one has specifically requested it. Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, requires all the public authorities to routinely publish 17 categories of information. This provision clearly specifies that all public authorities must make constant efforts to provide as much information suo moto to the public, at regular intervals, through various means including the Internet, so that the public have minimum need to use this Act to obtain information. In addition, self-disclosure by the public authorities should be disseminated with considerations about the local language, cost-effectiveness and the most effective means of communication, so that it reaches large sections of citizens. This ensures that citizens always have access to authentic, useful and relevant information. This is a key provision because it recognises that some information is so useful and important to the community at large, that it should be given out regularly, without anyone specifically requesting it. Self disclosure enables promotion of transparency and accountability in governance, and also reduces the demand for information by the citizens from public authorities, as most of the important information is available in the public domain.
Section- 4(1) (a)	All information in Indexed and Appropriate to be computerised	Citation/ Guideline pertaining to Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005  Record Management to be improved by all public authorities [Sec. 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act] Case: In the case of Paramveer Singh vs. Panjab University ,CIC/OK/A/2006/00016, dated 15/6/06), the applicant had applied for information regarding the merit list for selection of candidates to a particular post in the university. However, no proper information was supplied to him due to the negligence of the university’s PIO in identifying and collecting the proper information. As a result, the applicant was given misleading information. Judgment: The Commission held that every public authority, particularly after the implementation of the Right to Information Act, must take all measures in pursuance of Section 4(1)(a), to implement efficient record management systems in their offices so that the requests for information can be dealt with promptly and accurately. In the above case, the Commission further held, that the university should streamline its university record management system in such a manner that information can be provided to the citizens without any delay. 13 Provisions involved: Section 4(1)(a) - Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act, and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated.
Section- 4(1) (b)	Reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions	Citation/ Guideline pertaining to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act 2005  All public authorities to make pro-active disclosures [Sec. 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act] Judgment: In the Appeal No. 24/IC (A)/2006, dated 16 April 2006, before the Central Information Commission, it was held by the Commission that: “Every public authority is required to make pro-active disclosures of all the information required to be given as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(b), unless the same is exempt under the provisions of Section 8(1). In fact, an information system should be created so that citizens would have easy access to information without making any formal request for it”. This judgment re-emphasized the mandatory nature of disclosure of information on 17 points by every public authority according to the RTI Act. Provisions involved: Section 4(1)(b) - Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of the Act, 17 items
Section- 4(1) (d)	Reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions	Citation/ Guideline pertaining to Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005  Inappropriate information sought can be rejected [Sec. 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act] Judgment: In the case of Madan Lal Mirg v. Dinesh Singh (F.No.CIC/AT/2006/00105,dated 30/6/06), the applicant had asked for certain information from the records of the public authority and obtained all the information so asked. The applicant again filed an RTI application with this public authority and asked a number of questions and opinions so that he could use them to build a case which he could file in a court of law. CIC dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the information sought by the appellant does not qualify for disclosure as per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, and it is not the intention of this provision to provide an applicant with opinions or suggestions, which can be used to build case in a court of law, for an applicant. The Commission held that the information sought should be clearly information within the scope of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Provisions involved: Section 4(1)(d) - Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons.
Section- 6 (3)	Transfer of Application to another Public Authority	The Public Authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other Public Authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer.Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. RTI application to be transferred to the appropriate public authority [Sec. 6(3) of the RTI Act] Case:- CIC Appeal No. (Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00365, dated 22/1/2007) - In the case of Shyam Singh Thakur vs. Deptt. Of Science & Technology (Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00365, dated 22/1/2007), the appellant had sought certain information on a number of issues from the Department of Science and Technology. The PIO and the Appellate Authority (AA) of the Science and Technology Department (DST), in response to the application, stated that the information sought by the applicant did not pertain to the activities of their department, and advised him to approach the concerned public authority.   Judgment: The Central Information Commission (CIC), in the appeal, held that the PIO and the AA in the DST were justified in informing the applicant that the information asked did not relate to their department. The CIC further ruled that the DST was duty bound to transfer the application to the appropriate public authority within five days of the receipt of the application, as per the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Section- 7 (1)	Time limit for the supply of information	In any case within 30 (Thirty) days of the receipt of the request Additional 5 days in case of Transfer of application to other department where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
Section- 7 (3)	Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment	Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving—   (a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section      (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the dispatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that subsection; (b) information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms.
Section- 7 (8)	Reason to rejection	Where a request has been rejected under subsection (1) of Section- 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,- (i) The reasons for such rejection; (ii) The period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and (iii) The particulars of the Appellate Authority.
Section- 8 (1)	Non disclosure of information	Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,— (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;  (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information

    

Important Time Limits

RTI Stage	Time Limit	Remarks
Information officer	In any case within 30 (Thirty) days of the receipt of the request Additional 5 days in case of Transfer of application to other department where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
First Appeal	An appeal under section 19 (1) or section 19 (2) shall be disposed of within 30 (thirty) days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of 45 (forty-five) days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Second Appeal	No Time Limit

Important Cases

Issue	Case Reference	Result
No scope for repeating under RTI Act	CIC File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/001326SA - Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. DTC, GNCTD, Delhi, dated 25/06/2014.-	The Commission , in its decision , had observed that :- No scope for repeating under RTI Act :- 15. Though RTI Act, did not specifically provide this as a groun d of refusing the information, it is implied from the various provisions of RTI Act, that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly. 16. Once information is given, applicant shall not seek the same once again. If the applicant seeks information again again, the PIO, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission would be forced to spend their time on this repeated application, and in the process the authorities would lose that much time to address the other RTI applications or performing their general duties in their public office. Repeated RTI application amounts to clogging the office of public authority and CPIO would be right in refusing the same with intimation. Because the Repeated RTI application has an effect of clogging the public offices, it would amount to obstructing the free flow of information to deserving and genuine RTI applicants, besides preventing the officers from performing their general duties attached to their office.
Commission shall record ABUSE, admonish ABUSER		Commission shall record ABUSE, admonish ABUSER 17. As there is no provision in RTI Act, 2005 to penalize the applicant for abusing his right to information or clogging public office, Commission finds itself helpless with regard to penalizing them. However the Commission believes that it can record the fact of abuse of RTI Act 2005 and notify the admonition, direct/recommend applicants not to resort to abuse anymore and direct /recommend public authorities to refuse them. If any applicant resorts to three such repeated repeated RTI applications, the Commission may even recommend blocking of such abuse and direct the public authority not to entertain the same applicant anymore, which has again to be notified.
Repetition shall be ground of refusal		(i) even a single repetition of RTI application would would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time would have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty. (ii) Every repetition of RTI application is an obstruction of flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act
REASONS WHERE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION WITHIN 48 HOURS	CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in Appeal No - CIC/SG/A/2012/000814, Mr. Pratap Kumar Jena. Versus Dr. D. Ram Public Information Officer & Professor of Psychiatry, Central institute of Psychiatry	Provison of Section 7(1) states that where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. This provision has to be applied only in exceptional cases and the norm is that information should be provided within thirty days from the receiving date. Whether the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person has to be carefully scrutinized and only in a very limited number of cases this ground can be relied upon. The government machinery is not designed in a way that responses to all RTI Applications can be given within fortyeight hours. A broad interpretation of ‘life or liberty’ would result in a substantial diversion of manpower and resources towards replying to RTI Applications which would be unjustified. Parliament has made a very special exception for cases involving ‘life or liberty’ so that it would be used only when an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved.The life or liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven. The Commission is well aware of the fact that when a citizen exercises his or her fundamental right to information, the information disclosed may assist him or her to lead a better life. But in all such cases, the proviso of Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless imminent danger to life or liberty can be proven.
Consider pension related information as life and liberty	CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION given a judgment on 30/03/2017 in the case of CIC/BS/A/2016/001238, Amrika Bai VS. PIO, EPFO, Raipur	The Commission also requires as per Section 19(8)(a)(i, iii & iv) of RTI Act, the public authority to consider pension related information as life and liberty concerned information to provide quick access to information, publish necessary guidelines to deliver the pension related information and circulate amongst all CPIOs, and train them to provide such information concerning pension within 48 hours and the FAAs to initiate hearing proceedings within 48 hours. The Commission recommends the public authorities to initiate measures to address the grievances relating to pension within 48 hours and inform about redressal within one month from the date of receipt of the grievance.
Reasons for rejection of requests for information must be clearly provided [Sec. 8(1) of the RTI Act]	Dhananjay Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University (Decision No.CIC/OK/A/00163, dated 7/7/2006)	the applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and subsequent death of a student in the university hospital due to alleged negligence of the doctors attending him. The appellant was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the university saying that the information sought could not be provided under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, without providing any further reasons as to how the information sought could not be provided under the RTI Act. Judgment: The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to malafide denial of legitimate information. The public authority must provide reasons for rejecting the particular application. The Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for information was rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act
No disclosure in case of pending departmental enquiry	Sarvesh Kaushal vs. F.C.I. and others (Appeal Nos. 243/ICPB/2006 and 244/ICPB/2006, dated 27/12/2006)	The appellant had applied for documents relating to the departmental enquiry launched against him in a corruption case. Judgment: The CIC, rejecting the appeal, held that the departmental enquiry, which was in progress against him, was a pending investigation under law, and the same attracted the provisions of Section 8(1)(h). Therefore, there is no question of disclosing any information relating to his prosecution, the CIC noted.

        The right to Information Act is one of the most important and landmark acts that were passed by the government of India. In very simple terms, right to information means that the citizens of the country have the right to get information from the government authorities and the authorities that are related to the government in some way or other. Now, if you look at India, before the RTI Act was passed, the right to information mainly was only with the Members of Parliament or the people working for the government in higher positions. So, for example, if there's a member of the Lok Sabha or there's a member of the Rajya Sabha, they had the right to ask questions to the. 

    So before the RTI Act was passed, they were the few privileged people who could actually ask for information from the government. But with the beginning of the 21st century, it was realized that if India has to become a modern, democratic country, we have to ensure transparency. We have to ensure that our own citizens get all the information that they require from the. The first such initiative in that regard was not the RTI Act of 2005. In fact, the first such law to give right to information the people came up in 2000 and this was called the Freedom of Information Act and not the right to information. The Freedom of Information Act was introduced in 2002, specifically to ensure that the people of the country can get more information from the government. However, it was not quite a law that people had expected.

Differences between the RTI act that we have right now and the Freedom of Information:- Let's just take an example. Let's say you ask for an information from the Ministry of Railway. For example, you want to know about the new expenses at the Ministry of Railways Or you want to know the profit or loss has the railways been. Ask from the RTI act that we have right now, when we filed this appeal or when you file this information. You will get a response within 30 days. If not, you can file an appeal. If you don't even get an answer to your appeal, your second appeal can also go to the Central Information Commission. Means. In the RTI act that we have, there is a provision to file appeals to independent statutory bodies such as the Central Information Commission. However, in this law, that is the Freedom of Information Act of 2002, there was no provision to file an appeal to an independent authority. You would only file the appeal within that particular body within that particular ministry. And that is why it was realized that we need to have a better look or a more stringent law to give more information, that is why, in 2005, we saw the introduction of the landmark law called the right to information. 

    The biggest feature of this ACT is that all citizens of the country, have the right to get information. as I mentioned earlier, Before the RTI Act was passed, the members of Parliament, The members of the Councils or the people at higher position in the government had the power and the right to get information. But the common citizens of the country, like you, like me, we did not have that. So essentially the RTI act was to empower the citizens to get information from the Act.

Now what kind of information can we get? 

    There are a lot of information that you can get, from the simplest ones to the most complex. For example, 

            right now you can file an RTI to ask the Government of India what will be the color of the new Parliament building that is coming? 

Or 

            maybe how many car parking spots will be available in the new parliament? 

Or 

            you can go to the more complex questions. How much loss or how much profit has a certain Ministry, certain department made? What is the status of all the ventilators that were imported by the Government of India during the COVID-19 crisis? 

        Enough information can be asked to the government or government authorities through the RTI. That is the right to information. That is how the law essentially work. Need for this law is that in order to be empowered citizens, you need to have information about how the government is working. As long as the government knows that their information is transparent, that the people will get to know about it, the government will also be expected to work in a much better. The law actually says that the government departments must make efforts to make so. Suo moto disclosures means that the government departments are encouraged to publish information on their own platform without waiting for the people to ask. Today, if I want to know who exactly are the Secretaries of the various State government departments, or today, if I want to know. I don't have to file an RTI, I just have to go and visit the state government website. And on the website, under the tab of Organization charts, I can get to know Organization charts. 

        So ideally all the government departments, as much as possible should disclose as much information as possible. So. If the person does not find a specific information on the website or on the portal, then the Citizen of India can go ahead and file the RTI but the. Little information. I should go ahead and file an. Because for filing an RTI I have to pay a certain fee, I have to wait for some. Ideally, all this information, as much as possible, should be available on the portal or on the official website. 

    

        Now when you say right to information. What kind of information can you expect or what kind of information can you ask from? The law says that the word information actually includes all these. 

            You can ask for records from the government departments. 

            You can ask for circulars, 

            Opinions For example, let's say there was a meeting, and in that meeting different people had different opinions. Different bureaucrats gave their opinions to the minister or a certain ministry before taking the final decision was considering multiple options. All those. 

            The details of the contracts, for example, which company? The contract to make the new parliament. For which company has been given the contract to make let's a new airport at Noida? These kind of contracts and all those information can also be asked as per the RTI reports, press releases etc. 

    Now, this is not to say that you can get your hands on any information. Because there are certain exceptions. For example, 

            If you ask for information which according to the Government of India will hamper the national security, that information will not be provided. 

            If there's an information which is confidential, That will also not be provided. 

        So don't imagine that all the government information is open to your available to you under the RTI because there are certain exceptions. The other question is from whom can you ask for this information.

         Can you ask the information, for example about me? 

         Can you ask information about what is the address of this person or where does he? 

     There are only certain specific category of institutions from which you can actually ask for information. 

        1) These include the constitutional bodies. 

        2) Statutory bodies. And 

        3) The body which are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, which includes the state funded NGO.

 All these together, our bodies that come under the purview of the RTI and you can ask for. 

Now, what exactly is the process of filing an RTI? How do you file an RTI? 

    You can make a request in writing or through electronic means. I'll show you the portal also in Hindi, English or any official language of that area. You have to specially specify what information are you. You have to pay a fee. So the fee that you pay online is rupees 10. You can file an RTI, give rupees 10 and then the reply will be given to you within 30 days usually. 

The other interesting part is. If somebody ask for certain information no, Need to give any reason for? For example, if I file an RTI asking for, what will be the color of the new building of the? I do not need to give any reason as to why I need that information. And that actually is a negative point also. Because what has happened is ever since the RTI law has come up. A lot of people keep on filling the RTI thinking that they might be able to get some interesting information and they can actually send it to the media and come in the news. That has also become a big concern. That is. The government authorities are now so fed up with these RTI's which are not really making any sense, but people are just filing RTI just hoping that they would get some explosive information. 

A few years back there was an RTI, The question was. How much expenses has the Delhi Chief minister made in last year on serving tea and snacks to the visitors of his office? So the people who actually visit the Delhi Chief Minister's office, how much money has the government spent in serving them tea and some snacks, some more, some. And if I remember correctly, the Rd reply was about two cores or 1.5 crore or some. You. Let's see breaking news the Delhi government has spent ₹2,00,00,000 in just serving. This one. Actually setting it apart, if you actually analyze it, it is not really a big deal. 365 days in a year, the number of people who actually visit these government offices, even if you take the most meager cost of snacks, you will be able to come at this calculation. But it made for a great headline, right? 

    That is why a lot of people now keep filing RTIs, because 

        1) They know they just have to pay ₹10. 

        2) They don't have to give any reason. 

That is why the RTI law has certain loopholes. But this is how you can file an. What do you have to do is just Google RTI online. In this web portal, you can easily file an RTI. So basically, here is the option for registered users. If not, there's also an option to make a new content like any other website. You can log in. Create an ID and pass. And then next will be the page where you can file an RTIs. 

        Now let me tell you an interesting part, The first thing that you have to mention here is which ministry or department is it that you're asking your question from, and then what is the public authority?  for common citizen, they might not know that this particular question or this particular information is under which particular ministry. Let's take that same example. If I want to ask what will be the height or the color of the new Parliament building, I don't know which ministry is responsible for it. I don't know which public authorities responsible for it. So what do I do? Now this is where the law is. If you don't know what exactly is the information or To actually have to ask the question to, you can randomly select any ministry or ask for your case. So whichever ministry that you think is a sponsor, you can select that. For example, you just select the railway minister. Now it is the responsibility of that ministry to transfer your RTI to the correct department, so you don't have to. The only difference is that it will now take 35 days for your reply to get rather than 30 days. So plus five days will be added in case the RTI has to be transferred to some other department. But you will not be rejected on the ground that you actually file into a wrong department or wrong public authority. 

        

Time Limits

        The law says within 30 days you will get the response. 

Or 

        if on that response of the RTI, someone's life is dependent, Then within 48 hours you will get the response. 

As I said earlier, if you file an incorrect department and your RTI has to be transferred internally, then it will take 35 days. 

Responsibility of the department API

         API is assistant Public Information Officer which every government department would have. They will be the one who will transfer your RTI to the correct department. You don't have to worry. This is a time limit. 

Grievance redressal

Now what if you don't get the response within 30? 

The response that you get is not correct. Then what do you do? 

Good law must have certain grievance redressal, right? In that case you can file an app. Just discussing. Where exactly can you file? Gives you a lot of rights as a set. These rights include choosing the medium of requests. That is, you can file it online, you can file it off. You can also choose a language of request. You don't have to stick to English on your Hindi. You don't have to give any reason for. Not just this. If you belong to the BPL, it is below poverty line. You don't even have to pay the ₹10 fee. This is one of the. Then you don't. You also have the right to know about the reason for rejection of information. Let's say you ask for information. The government office did not give you the information, but they have to specify the reason. Why is it that they're not dispersing this information? you can file an appeal to the higher. The second appeal will go to the CIC. Send the information Commission of the State Information Commission depending upon which authority are you asking the question. If your question is regarding a state government authority or the state government, then your second appeal will go to the State Information Commission. Otherwise it will go to a central Information Commission. As a public authority, they also have certain duties. In order to give you information as soon as possible, they have to maintain the record in a computerized manner so that they can get the information as soon as possible. 

Every government department would have their own public information officers who will be responsible for keeping a track of the RTI's and giving out the replies. And they will have to transfer all the RTI if they are not in concern with their. When you're filing an RTI, you can randomly choose any department, any ministry. You don't have to be concerned with it. They will be the one who will be transferring it. It will just add five more days. Now, what do you do if you don't get a reply within 30 days? There are two levels of. The first level of appeal is within that organization. Let's say you asked for information from Ministry of Railways. You did not get it. Then your first appeal will be to a senior officer in the Ministry of. Even after the first appeal, if you still did not get the required information, then your second appeal will be with the information,. If it is regarding a central government authority and the appeal will go to the CIA. If it is a state government authority, then it will go to the state information,. The other interesting part is that for first appeal, Again, there is a time limit that they will give you the answer within 30 days Or they can extend it to 45 days also if they tell you the reason why they're delaying. But now comes the biggest loophole in. The loophole is that for second appeal there is no time limit for the response. So if you actually filed a second appeal to the CIC or the State Information Commission, there is no specific time limit within which you need to get out. And that is why. And that is what many people have been suggesting as our needed suggestion or a needed change in this. Now a lot of public authorities have also been exempted under the RTI. Specifically the one which are with respect to the defense and national. 

RTI Amendment Bill of 2019? Why the government brought this? 

In 2019 there were two main changes that were introduced in the. Understand the RTI law from the governments. Irrespective of whichever government is in power, respect of whichever country we are talking about. No government wants to give a lot of information. Almost every government would want to highlight or hide certain information if they think that is detrimental to their interest. The law such as RTI, it is introduced to make the people feel good, but then the governments in power try as much to hide that information as Poss. So there have been a lot of attempts to weaken the RTI. One of those attempt was made in 2019 when two big changes are introduced. 

First change that was introduced was that earlier the law said that the tenure Of chief Information Commissioner and information commissioners was five years. This is what the laws. But the first, in in 2019, was that now the tenure is decided by the government of. So they can change the tenure whenever they want and they have reduced it to three. Tomorrow, without any requirement of the change, they can say from now onward to tenure is 2 years. Why? Smaller the tenure, the lesser powerful the body is and the more control the government has. 

Second change of 2019 was that earlier the salary of central Information Commissioner was equal to chief Information Commissioner. And the salary of information commissioners was equal to election commissioners. So the salary of election commissioners increase, their salary would automatically increase. 

Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act of India, certain types of information can be rejected or withheld by public authorities. Some of the reasons for rejection of information under the RTI Act include:

1. Information that is exempted from disclosure under any other law
2. Information that could harm the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the country
3. Information that could affect the strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the state
4. Information that could adversely affect the privacy of an individual
5. Information that could cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or Legislature
6. Information that is confidential or proprietary in nature and is shared by a third party in confidence
7. Information that is related to ongoing investigations, court proceedings or legal privilege
8. Information that is of a personal nature and unrelated to any public activity or interest

It is important to note that the RTI Act mandates that any information that is not exempted under the above provisions should be disclosed by the public authorities. If the information requested is denied, the applicant can appeal the decision to a higher authority or the Central Information Commission.