RTI Act: Appeals, Penalties, and Information Commissions

Posted on Feb 4, 2026 in Law & Jurisprudence

Appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19

Section 19 of the Act lays down the entire framework for first appeal, second appeal, timelines, powers, and procedure.

First Appeal – Section 19(1)

A first appeal lies to an officer senior in rank to the Central/State Public Information Officer (CPIO/ SPIO) within the same public authority.

Grounds for First Appeal

A person may file a first appeal when:

No decision is received within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) or Section 7(3)(a).
The applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the PIO.

Time Limit

Appeal must be filed within 30 days from:
- The expiry of the prescribed period, or
- Receipt of the PIO’s decision.

Condonation of Delay

The appellate authority may entertain the appeal even after 30 days if sufficient cause is shown.

Section 19(2): Where the PIO passes an order under Section 11 directing disclosure of third-party information, the concerned third party has a special right of appeal. Time Limit: Third party must file appeal within 30 days from the date of the order.

Second Appeal – Section 19(3)

A second appeal lies to the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC).

When Second Appeal Lies

Against any decision of the first appellate authority under Sec 19(1).

Time Limit

Must be filed within 90 days from:
- The date on which the decision should have been made, or
- The date of actual receipt of the decision.

Condonation of Delay

The Commission may admit the appeal after 90 days if satisfied that delay was due to sufficient cause.

Section 19(4): If the matter relates to third-party information, the Commission must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the third party.

Section 19(5): In any appeal, the onus of proving that denial of information was justified lies entirely on the PIO.

Section 19(6):

Appeals under Section 19(1) or (2) must be disposed of within 30 days.
In exceptional circumstances, this may be extended to a maximum of 45 days, with written reasons.

Section 19(7): The decision of the CIC or SIC is binding on the public authority.

Section 19(8): The Commission has wide powers, including the power to:

Ensure compliance with the Act, such as:
1. Providing access to information in a specific form.
2. Appointing PIOs where necessary.
3. Publishing certain categories of information.
4. Changing record-management practices.
5. Enhancing training for officials.
6. Ensuring submission of annual RTI compliance reports.
The Commission may order compensation for any loss/detriment caused to the applicant.
Penalties under Section 20 may be imposed for unreasonable denial or delay.
If the request is unsustainable, the Commission may dismiss the appeal.

Section 19(10): The CIC/SIC shall decide appeals as per rules prescribed by the government, ensuring fairness, transparency, and due process.

Penalties under the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 20

Section 20(1)

The CIC or SIC may impose a monetary penalty on the Central/State Public Information Officer if, during the disposal of a complaint or appeal, it finds that the PIO has without reasonable cause committed any of the following defaults:

Grounds for Imposing Penalty

Penalty is attracted when the PIO has:

Refused to receive an RTI application without reasonable cause.
Not furnished information within the time limit prescribed under Section 7(1) (Generally, within 30 days).
Malafidely denied the request for information (i.e., with dishonest intention).
Knowingly provided incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
Destroyed information that was the subject of the request.
Obstructed the furnishing of information in any manner, deliberately or negligently.

Amount of Penalty

A penalty of Rs. 250 per day is imposed.
The calculation starts from:
- The day after the expiry of the time limit under Section 7(1), or
- The day the default occurred (for other violations).
Maximum penalty: Rs. 25,000 only, irrespective of the number of days.

Before Imposing Penalty

The PIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Conclusion: Together, Sections 19 and 20 form the core enforcement mechanism of the RTI Act, ensuring both effective appellate remedies and strict accountability of Public Information Officers. While Section 19 provides a structured, time-bound two-tier appeal system that safeguards citizens’ right to access information, Section 20 reinforces this right by imposing penalties.

Constitution of the Central Information Commission – Section 12, RTI Act, 2005

Section 12 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provides for the establishment, composition, appointment, qualifications, and functioning of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which is the apex appellate authority under the Act.

Establishment of CIC – Section 12(1)

The Central Government is required to constitute the Central Information Commission by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette. The CIC is empowered to perform all functions and exercise powers assigned under the Act.

Composition – Section 12(2)

The CIC consists of:

One Chief Information Commissioner (CIC); and
Such number of Central Information Commissioners (ICs), not exceeding ten, as the government considers necessary.

Appointment Procedure – Section 12(3)

The President of India appoints the CIC and the Information Commissioners based on the recommendation of a high-level committee comprising:

The Prime Minister – Chairperson
The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha
A Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister

Powers and Administrative Control – Section 12(4)

The CIC functions autonomously. The Chief Information Commissioner has overall responsibility for: General superintendence, Direction, Management of affairs of the Commission. The CIC is assisted by the Information Commissioners.

Qualifications – Section 12(5)

The CIC and ICs must be persons of eminence in public life with extensive knowledge and experience in fields such as: Law, Science & Technology, Social service, Management, Journalism, Mass media, Administration and governance.

Restrictions / Eligibility Conditions – Section 12(6)

The CIC or an Information Commissioner cannot:

Be a Member of Parliament or Member of a State/UT Legislature
Hold any office of profit
Be connected with any political party
Carry on any business or pursue any profession

Headquarters – Section 12(7)

The headquarters of the CIC is located in New Delhi.

Constitution of the State Information Commission – Section 15, RTI Act, 2005

Section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provides for the establishment and structure of the State Information Commission (SIC), which functions as the highest independent authority in a State for enforcing the right to information.

Establishment of the Commission – Section 15(1)

Every State Government shall, through a notification in the Official Gazette, constitute the “____ State Information Commission”. This body is empowered to exercise all powers and perform all functions assigned to it under the Act.

Composition – Section 15(2)

The State Information Commission consists of:

One State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC); and
Such number of State Information Commissioners (SICs), not exceeding ten, as the State Government considers necessary.

Appointment Procedure – Section 15(3)

The SCIC and State Information Commissioners are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee comprising:

Chief Minister – Chairperson
Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly
A Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister

Administrative Control – Section 15(4)

The State Chief Information Commissioner has the responsibility of: General superintendence, Direction, Management of the affairs of the State Information Commission.

Qualifications – Section 15(5)

The SCIC and SICs must be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in fields such as: Law, Science & technology, Social service, Management, Journalism or mass media, Administration and governance.

Restrictions / Ineligibility – Section 15(6)

The SCIC or any SIC cannot:

Be a Member of Parliament or State Legislature
Hold an office of profit
Be connected with a political party
Engage in any business or profession

Headquarters – Section 15(7)

The headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be at a place specified by the State Government through notification.

Duty to Receive and Inquire into Complaints – Section 18(1)

The Information Commission must receive and inquire into complaints from any person who faces difficulty in exercising the right to information. Complaints may arise in the following situations:

(a) Non-appointment of PIO / Refusal to Receive Application

When an applicant cannot submit an RTI request because:

No Public Information Officer (PIO) has been appointed, or
The Assistant PIO refuses to receive the application or appeal.

Other Situations for Complaint

Who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act.
Who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act.
Who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable.
Who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act.
In respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

2. Power to Initiate Inquiry – Section 18(2)

If the Commission is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds, it may initiate an inquiry into the matter on its own.

3. Powers of a Civil Court – Section 18(3)

While conducting an inquiry, the Information Commission has powers equivalent to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following:

Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things.
Requiring the discovery and inspection of documents.
Receiving evidence on affidavit.
Requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office.
Issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents.
Any other matter which may be prescribed.

4. Power to Examine Any Record – Section 18(4)

Notwithstanding any conflicting law, the Commission may:

Examine any record under the control of the public authority,
During the inquiry of any complaint, and
No record can be withheld from the Commission on any ground.

Procedure for Accessing Information under the RTI Act, 2005

The Right to Information Act, 2005 lays down a structured and citizen-friendly procedure for obtaining information from public authorities. The procedure primarily operates through Section 6 (Request for Information) and Section 7 (Disposal of Request), supported by provisions on exemptions, severability, and third-party information.

Filing the RTI Application – Section 6

(a) Mode and Language of Application — s.6(1)

Any person seeking information may make a request:

In writing or through electronic means,
In English, Hindi, or the official language of the area,
Accompanied by the prescribed application fee.

The request must be submitted to: The Central or State Public Information Officer (CPIO/SPIO), or, The Central/State Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO/SAPIO).

(c) No Reasons Required — s.6(2)

The applicant is not required to give any reason for seeking information or provide unnecessary personal details, except contact information.

Disposal of the RTI Request – Section 7

(a) Time Limit for Response — s.7(1)

The PIO must respond:

Within 30 days of receipt of the application, or
Within 48 hours where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person.

The PIO may either: Provide the information, or, Reject the request for reasons under Sections 8 and 9.

(b) Deemed Refusal — s.7(2)

If the PIO does not respond within the statutory time limit, the request is deemed refused, enabling the applicant to file an appeal.

(f) Consideration of Third-Party Representation — s.7(7)

Before disclosure of third-party information, the PIO must consider the representation under Section 11.

(g) Communication of Rejection — s.7(8)

If the request is rejected, the PIO must communicate:

Reasons for rejection,
Time limit for appeal,
Particulars of the appellate authority.

Exemptions to Disclosure – Section 8

Section 8 lists specific exemptions, such as:

National security, sovereignty, foreign relations, privileges of Parliament (s.8(1)(a)-(c)).
Trade secrets, commercial confidence (s.8(1)(d)).
Fiduciary information (s.8(1)(e)).
Information that endangers life or safety (s.8(1)(g)).
Investigation-related information (s.8(1)(h)).
Personal information invading privacy (s.8(1)(j)).

However, public interest override applies under Section 8(2). Information older than 20 years must generally be disclosed (s.8(3)).

Section 9

A request may be rejected if disclosure infringes copyright of a third party, except where copyright belongs to the State.

Severability – Section 10

If only part of the record is exempt, the PIO must:

Sever the exempt portion, and
Provide access to the remaining information,
Along with a written notice stating reasons, facts, fee details, and appeal rights.

Third Party Information – Section 11

Where disclosure concerns third-party confidential information:

(a) Notice to Third Party — s.11(1)

The PIO must give a written notice within 5 days to the third party, inviting representations on disclosure.

(b) Opportunity to Submit Representation — s.11(2)

The third party has 10 days to submit objections.

(c) Final Decision — s.11(3)

The PIO must decide within 40 days of the original request whether to disclose the information and must give written notice to the third party.

(d) Right to Appeal — s.11(4)

The third party may appeal under Section 19.

Role of PIO Section 5 – Designation of Public Information Officers (PIOs)

Section 5 creates the institutional framework for implementing the right to information. It mandates every public authority to appoint officers responsible for receiving, processing, and providing information to citizens.

Appointment of Public Information Officers — Section 5(1)

Within 100 days of the enactment of the RTI Act, every public authority must designate:

Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) or State Public Information Officers (SPIOs).

These PIOs must be appointed in all administrative units or offices as necessary to efficiently respond to RTI requests. Their primary duty is to provide information sought by applicants.

Appointment of Assistant Public Information Officers — Section 5(2)

In addition to PIOs, every public authority must also designate officers at each:

Sub-divisional level, or
Other sub-district level as Central/State Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPIO/ SAPIO).

Role of CAPIO/SAPIO:

To receive RTI applications or first appeals,
And forward them promptly to the appropriate PIO or appellate authority.

Important: If an RTI application is filed with a CAPIO/SAPIO, 5 extra days are added to the response period under Section 7(1).

Duties of PIOs — Section 5(3)

Every CPIO/SPIO must:

Deal with all RTI requests received, and
Provide reasonable assistance to persons seeking information (including helping illiterate or disabled applicants).

PIOs are the key officers responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act.

Power of PIO to Seek Assistance — Section 5(4)

A PIO may seek help from any other officer as needed to discharge duties. This allows the PIO to gather information that may lie with other departments/officers.

Conflict Between RTI and Right to Privacy

RTI (Right to Information) and privacy are frequently referred to as “two sides of the same coin” since, in essence, they complement one another by safeguarding an individual’s personal private while fostering transparency and accountability in government.

Right to Information

The Right to Information (RTI) empowers people with the fundamental right to request and access information held by government bodies. It stems from the freedom to “seek and receive information,” which is recognized globally as a core human right, and is an essential part of the broader right to free expression. The RTI Act is rooted in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees our fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Right to Privacy

Every individual has an inherent need for privacy. It is a fundamental human urge to establish personal boundaries and maintain a sense of solitude. Historically, the Indian Constitution did not explicitly recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental right. A significant step in this direction came with the Supreme Court’s ruling in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, where the Court held that the “right to life and personal liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to privacy.

The Interplay Between the Rights

The rights to privacy and information, while seemingly at odds, represent two critical aspects of individual and societal well-being. They are like two sides of the same coin—balancing personal freedom with transparency. This delicate balance has been reflected in several landmark Supreme Court rulings, each exploring the intersection of these rights.

In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to collect information on the assets and liabilities of candidates contesting elections for Parliament or State Legislatures, including those of their spouses and dependents. However, this mandate was challenged in PUCL v. Union of India (2003), where it was argued that disclosing the assets of spouses infringed upon their right to privacy. The ruling essentially stated that when public interest is at stake, the right to information outweighs the right to privacy.

Conclusion: Both the right to privacy and the right to information are designed to ensure that governments remain open and accountable. Clear legal definitions and consistent standards for personal information under data protection and access to information laws would resolve many conflicts.

Role of Civil Society in the Evolution of the RTI Act, 2005

The evolution of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in India is widely regarded as one of the most significant achievements of civil society movements. The Act did not emerge overnight; rather, it was the result of years of persistent advocacy, grassroots mobilization, public campaigns, and strategic pressure by civil society organisations, activists, and citizens’ groups demanding transparency and accountability in governance.

1. Initiation of the Movement

Civil society played a foundational role by first identifying the need for a legal framework enabling citizens to access government information. In the early 1990s, organisations such as the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan highlighted the deep-rooted corruption in wage payments and public works.

2. Public Hearings and Social Audits

MKSS introduced the concept of Jan Sunwais (public hearings) where official records were read aloud to villagers. These hearings demonstrated that access to information could directly expose corruption.

3. Formation of National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI)

In 1996, activists, lawyers, journalists, and academics formed the NCPRI, which became the central civil society coalition advocating for a national RTI law.

4. Media Support and Public Mobilization

Civil society used media campaigns, press conferences, and publications to create widespread awareness about the importance of RTI. National newspapers amplified the demand for transparency, turning RTI into a public issue rather than a limited activist concern.

5. Strategic Engagement with Government and Lawmakers

Civil society groups regularly engaged with parliamentary committees, bureaucrats, and political leaders to refine the draft law. Their advocacy ensured that key provisions—such as time-bound disclosure, penalties for non-compliance, and the creation of Information Commissions—were included. Continuous pressure forced the government to strengthen the weak Freedom of Information Act, 2002, and replace it with the more robust RTI Act, 2005.

6. Judicial Interventions and Legal Advocacy

Civil society also supported a series of PILs arguing that the Right to Information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court’s judgments in State of UP v. Raj Narain, SP Gupta v. Union of India, and later decisions created the constitutional basis for the RTI law. Civil society lawyers used these precedents to support the legislative demand.

Conclusion: Civil society was the driving force behind the creation of the RTI Act, 2005. Their efforts not only shaped the evolution of the Act but also ensured its strong, pro-citizen character.

Relation Between RTI and Good Governance

The Right to Information Act, 2005 directly strengthens the pillars of good governance—transparency, accountability, participation, efficiency, rule of law, and corruption-free administration. By giving citizens the legal right to access government information, RTI shifts governance from secrecy to openness.

1. RTI Promotes Transparency

RTI ensures transparency by mandating proactive disclosure under Section 4 and giving citizens access to government functioning, expenditure, and decision-making. This reduces information gaps and ensures people can monitor the administration.

2. RTI Enhances Accountability

RTI legally binds officials to answer queries, explain decisions, and justify delays. The possibility of penalties under Section 20 ensures responsible conduct by PIOs. When citizens question misuse of funds or procedural lapses, departments become more answerable.

3. RTI Encourages Citizen Participation

RTI empowers citizens with knowledge about schemes, budgets, development works, and local governance. Meaningful participation ensures decisions reflect public needs and strengthens democratic engagement at all levels.

4. RTI Strengthens the Rule of Law

RTI supports the rule of law by allowing citizens to scrutinize government decisions, documents, and records. When information reveals arbitrary or illegal action, people can challenge it through legal forums.

5. RTI Reduces Corruption

By exposing tenders, expenditure details, and decision-making processes, RTI reduces opportunities for corruption. Public scrutiny acts as a deterrent against bribery, favoritism, and fund misuse.

Limitations of the RTI

Overuse of RTI obstructs national development. Valuable time of public authorities is wasted furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
The Act does not emphasize active intervention in educating people, especially when India has levels of illiteracy and poverty which excludes a large section of society from using their rights under RTI.
RTI Act fails to protect whistleblowers so that they can speak out if they find malpractice in an organisation.

RTI and Media

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is a powerful mechanism enabling transparency, accountability, and participatory democracy. For the media, RTI acts as a legal tool to access authentic information from public authorities. It strengthens investigative journalism, exposes corruption, and promotes informed public discourse.

Relationship Between RTI and Media

1. RTI Strengthens Investigative Journalism

RTI has become the backbone of modern investigative reporting. It allows journalists to bypass bureaucratic secrecy and obtain documentary evidence directly from the Government.

2. RTI Enhances Transparency and Good Governance

The media uses RTI to bring transparency into:

Public spending
Recruitment and promotions
Administrative decisions
Award of government tenders
Electoral processes

Case Law: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) – The Supreme Court held that voters have the right to know the criminal antecedents, financial position, and educational qualifications of candidates.

3. RTI Facilitates Free Speech and Freedom of Press

Under Article 19(1)(a), the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to know is intrinsic to free speech. RTI operationalizes this principle by giving media legal access to information.

Case Law: Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) – The Court held that the right to impart and receive information is part of free speech.

4. RTI Helps Media Expose Corruption and Misuse of Power

Media frequently uses RTI to uncover wrongdoing in various sectors—police, education, health, environment, public-sector undertakings.

Case Law: Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) – The Supreme Court held that answer sheets constitute “information” and can be accessed under RTI. Impact: Increased transparency in public examinations, widely reported by media.

5. RTI Helps Media in Electoral Transparency

Media has used RTI extensively to:

Access political party expenditure details
Seek data from Election Commission
Investigate electoral roll errors
Examine use of public funds by governments during elections

Challenges Faced by Media in Using RTI

Delay or denial of information despite statutory timelines.
Misuse of exemptions under Section 8.
Non-appointment of Public Information Officers.
Threats or harassment to journalists using RTI.
Bureaucratic hurdles and poor record management.

RTI and Participatory Democracy

Participatory democracy is a form of governance where citizens actively engage in decision-making processes, ensuring that government policies reflect public needs. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) is a crucial tool in strengthening participatory democracy by empowering citizens with information and enabling them to hold authorities accountable.

1. RTI Enables Citizen Participation

RTI allows citizens to access information about government policies, programs, and decisions.
With this information, citizens can provide feedback, suggest improvements, and monitor implementation of schemes.

Case Law: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) – The Supreme Court held that RTI is essential for democracy, empowering citizens to participate meaningfully in governance.

2. RTI Promotes Transparency and Accountability

Transparency is the foundation of participatory democracy. Without information, citizens cannot engage effectively.
RTI ensures that government actions are visible, understandable, and contestable by the public.
Citizens can challenge arbitrary decisions or corruption using RTI, reinforcing democratic values.

Case Law: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) – Disclosure of candidates’ criminal, financial, and educational background enhances informed citizen participation.

3. RTI Empowers Civil Society and Media

RTI enables media, NGOs, and citizen groups to access official information, which they can use to educate and mobilize the public. Investigative journalism and public campaigns based on RTI enhance collective decision-making.

4. RTI Encourages Grassroots Democracy

At the local level, RTI empowers citizens to monitor panchayats, municipalities, and local development projects.
Citizens can participate in planning, budget monitoring, and evaluation of government schemes.
Section 4(1)(b) of RTI mandates proactive disclosure by public authorities, facilitating informed public engagement.

5. Challenges

Lack of awareness among citizens about RTI limits participation.
Delays or denial of information by authorities undermine the purpose.
Misuse of Section 8 exemptions may restrict access to critical information.

Core Concepts in RTI Governance

1. Principles of Good Governance

Good governance refers to the effective, transparent, and accountable functioning of public institutions to meet citizens’ needs. It is guided by principles such as transparency, accountability, rule of law, responsiveness, equity, participation, efficiency, and ethical conduct. The RTI Act, 2005 strengthens good governance by giving citizens the right to access official records, inspect documents, and monitor government actions. Transparency ensures that decisions are open to public scrutiny, accountability requires officials to answer for their actions, and citizen participation ensures policies reflect public needs. RTI also encourages ethical practices and reduces corruption, thereby improving the efficiency and credibility of public administration.

2. Public Accountability

Public accountability is the obligation of government authorities and officials to answer for their actions, decisions, and use of public resources. It ensures that public power is exercised responsibly and for public benefit. The RTI Act reinforces accountability by allowing citizens to access information about government expenditures, projects, policies, and decisions. PIOs (Public Information Officers) are legally required to provide correct information within specified timelines, and non-compliance may attract penalties under Section 20. This enables citizens, civil society, and media to question irregularities, prevent misuse of funds, and monitor public officials’ performance. Accountability under RTI strengthens democracy by making governance answerable to the people.

3. Lokpal

The Lokpal is an independent statutory body established at the national level to investigate and prosecute corruption complaints against public officials, including ministers, MPs, and government employees. It acts as a check against abuse of authority and ensures transparency in administration. The RTI Act complements the Lokpal by providing access to government records, audit reports, and project-related information, which helps citizens and the Lokpal identify instances of corruption. Citizens can file RTI applications to uncover financial irregularities or delays in public schemes, thereby supporting the investigative process of the Lokpal. Together, RTI and Lokpal strengthen ethical governance and protect public resources from misuse.

4. Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is the right to express ideas, opinions, and receive information without undue restriction. RTI operationalizes this right by enabling citizens to access official information, empowering them to participate in informed public debates, policymaking, and democratic decision-making. Access to information helps journalists, activists, and citizens disseminate knowledge, expose irregularities, and ensure government transparency. RTI ensures that freedom of expression is meaningful by bridging the information gap between the State and citizens. It allows people to question government decisions, raise concerns about corruption, and promote transparency and justice in public administration.

5. Concept of Civil Society under RTI Act, 2005

Civil society comprises NGOs, social activists, advocacy groups, media, and citizens’ collectives that work to promote transparency, social justice, and accountability in governance. Civil society played a crucial role in advocating, drafting, and monitoring the RTI Act. Movements like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), and coalitions such as the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), mobilized public support, conducted awareness programs, and influenced policymakers. Post-enactment, civil society continues to educate citizens, assist in filing RTI applications, and use RTI to expose corruption and inefficiencies. Their active engagement ensures that RTI remains an effective tool for participatory democracy and ethical governance.

6. Information under RTI Act, 2005

Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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 law for the time being in force.

The Act ensures that citizens can obtain information held by or under the control of public authorities, except when it falls under specific exemptions (Sections 8 and 9).
RTI promotes transparency and accountability by allowing access to information relating to policy decisions, administrative actions, development programs, and public spending.

7. Severability under RTI Act, 2005

Severability is addressed in Section 10 of the RTI Act. It ensures that even if part of a record is exempt from disclosure, the rest of the information can be provided to the applicant.

Key Provisions of Section 10:

If a record contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the non-exempt portion must be disclosed.
The Public Information Officer (PIO) must:

Inform the applicant that only part of the record is being provided.
Specify the reason for partial non-disclosure, referring to the material and legal provisions.
Provide details of fees, if applicable, and the applicant’s rights to appeal under Sec 19.

This principle ensures that citizens receive maximum information without violating the exemptions meant to protect national security, privacy, or commercial confidentiality.

Constitutional Basis and RTI Process Summary

Article 19(1)(a) and RTI

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to information (RTI). This means citizens have the right to seek and receive information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

RTI Act, 2005 Key Aspects

The RTI Act, 2005, was enacted to give effect to this fundamental right, allowing citizens to request information from government bodies within 30 days (or 48 hours for matters concerning life or liberty). Key aspects include:

Scope: Any Indian citizen can seek information held by public authorities.
Exemptions: Information affecting sovereignty, security, or personal privacy may be restricted (Section 8).
Process: File an application with the Public Information Officer (PIO), with provisions for appeals if denied.

The Supreme Court has upheld this right in cases like Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India and PUCL v. Union of India, emphasizing its role in fostering an informed citizenry and curbing corruption.

Landmark Judgment: Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 2017)

Background

Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy challenged the Aadhaar scheme, arguing that mandatory biometric data collection violated his right to privacy. The case was referred to a nine-judge bench to determine if privacy is a fundamental right, as earlier judgments (M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954 and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962) had denied it.

Key Points of the Judgment

Right to Privacy as Fundamental Right: The court unanimously held that privacy is intrinsic to life, liberty, and dignity, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Overruled Previous Judgments: The decision overturned M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, establishing privacy as a constitutional right.
Aspects of Privacy: Includes informational privacy (data protection), bodily privacy, and decisional autonomy.
Not Absolute: Privacy can be restricted by law if it meets the triple test: Legality, Legitimate Aim, and Proportionality.

Implications

Data Protection: Prompted the need for a robust data protection law, leading to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Governance & Surveillance: Emphasized safeguards against unwarranted state intrusion, influencing policies on digital privacy.

RTI Impact on Grassroots Democracy

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has played a significant role in promoting transparency in grassroots democracy in India, but its impact is a mixed bag.

Positive Impacts

Empowering Local Governance: RTI enables citizens to access information about panchayat funds, projects, and decisions, fostering accountability in rural areas.
Enhancing Participation: Villagers can now question local authorities about public works, improving responsiveness.
Curbing Corruption: Exposing misuse of funds has deterred malpractices at the local level.

Challenges

Limited Awareness: A large rural population remains unaware of RTI procedures.
Implementation Hurdles: Delays and rejections are common; many local bodies lack trained Public Information Officers (PIOs).
Safety Risks: Activists in rural areas face threats or violence, deterring others from using RTI.
Digital Divide: Limited internet access hampers online filings, affecting rural users.

Critical Assessment of RTI Efficacy in Governance

Strengths

Enhanced Transparency: Citizens access data on functioning and expenditures, making governance more open.
Accountability Boost: RTI has uncovered scams (e.g., 2G spectrum allocation), prompting action and empowering citizens to question authorities.
Institutional Mechanisms: Information Commissions adjudicate appeals, providing a redressal pathway.

Challenges

Implementation Hurdles: Delays, rejections citing Section 8 exemptions, and poor record management persist.
Awareness & Access Gaps: Low awareness, especially in rural areas, limits its reach.
Safety Concerns: Threats to activists highlight inadequate protection.
Structural Limitations: Concerns about autonomy due to changes in Commission appointments and potential conflicts with data protection laws.

Suggestions for Improvement

Boost Awareness through targeted campaigns in local languages.
Strengthen Commissions by filling vacancies and ensuring autonomy.
Mandate digitization of records for faster access.
Protect activists through strict laws against harassment.

Procedure for Accessing Information under the RTI Act, 2005 (Summary)

1. File an Application (Section 6)

Submit a request in writing (or electronically) to the PIO.
Specify information sought clearly.
Pay the prescribed fee (usually ₹10 for central government, BPL exempt).

2. PIO’s Role (Sections 6-11)

Respond within 30 days (or 48 hours for life/liberty).
Provide information or reject with specific reasons citing exemptions.
Transfer request within 5 days if information lies elsewhere.

3. Response & Appeal

First Appeal (Section 19): To the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within 30 days if unsatisfied. FAA decides within 30 days.
Second Appeal: To the CIC/SIC within 90 days of FAA’s decision.

Key Highlights of PIO’s Role

Timely Response: Ensure compliance with 30-day limit (or 48 hours).
Clear Communication: Provide information in the requested format if feasible.
Exemptions Handling: Justify refusals under specific provisions.
No Reasons Needed: Applicant does not need to explain the purpose of the request.

Appeal and Penalties under the RTI Act (Sections 19 & 20) (Summary)

First Appeal (Section 19(1))

Filed with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within 30 days of receiving the response (or deemed refusal). FAA decides within 30 days.

Second Appeal (Section 19(3))

Filed with the CIC/SIC within 90 days of the FAA’s decision. The Commission’s decision is binding.

Penalties (Section 20)

If the PIO is found guilty of unjustified denial, delay, or providing misleading information, the Commission may impose a penalty of ₹250 per day, up to ₹25,000.

Highlights

Filing appeals is free for the applicant.
Penalties act as a deterrent, pushing PIOs toward proactive compliance.