A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
 
 
A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
Menu
Web-Site Launch Photographs
RTI Act, 2005
Hindi
English
Other language
Rules
Central rules
State rules
Guide book
DOPT circulars
Important judgments
Supreme court
High court
Tracking the appeal at CIC
Link to Information Commission
Link to other Organisations
For an Applicant
FAQ
For a PIO
FAQ
Feedback
Books on RTI
Join us


Denial of specific part of regulation from which the clause "promotion to a higher grade cannot be made without having the corresponding position available in the higher grade and no promotion can be made effective from a retrospective date” upheld by CIC     Right to Information Act 2005    Copy of NOC issued to an Airman (IAF) was denied claiming that it is 'Personal Information' the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the individual - CIC: Denial u/s 8(1)(j) upheld; No larger public interest disclosed     Right to Information Act 2005    PIO informed the Appellant that the information sought is not available in their office and transferred the application to Bangalore Development Authority u/s 6(3) - Appellant did not approach the transferee Public Authority - CIC: No intervention needed     Right to Information Act 2005    Transfer of pension to wrong account - Neither the RTI application nor the first appeal was responded by the respondent, on account of non-receipt - Respondent furnished a reply which the appellant claimed to have not received - CIC: Provide revised reply     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding home loan in which appellant’s mother, i.e., late Smt. V Jain was a guarantor - CIC: Information was related to third party property loan (Mr. Pradeep Jain and Smt. V Jain), and both are alive; No public activity or interest involved     Right to Information Act 2005    Total number of accounts opened by PNB under different welfare schemes - Delay of almost two years - CIC: PIO is cautioned and advised to strengthen its RTI portal to enable effective and timely disposal of RTI applications and first appeals in future     Right to Information Act 2005    Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?     Right to Information Act 2005    No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa     Right to Information Act 2005    Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?     Right to Information Act 2005    There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP     Right to Information Act 2005    Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai     Right to Information Act 2005    Are the state-funded ‘public trust institutions’ obligated to provide ‘information’ under the RTI Act?     Right to Information Act 2005    Takeaways from the Supreme Court verdict on the Electoral Bond Scheme     Right to Information Act 2005    We will know, we will live - RTI     Right to Information Act 2005   
2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered
FAQ

Is the PIO expected to provide answers to all the questions in an application?

A PIO is expected to provide ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act and not answer the questions of the applicant.

An information-seeker can’t demand from a public authority its opinion or seek its advice in a matter of the petitioner’s interest. A PIO is not expected to provide intangible such as interpretations, opinions, advices, explanations, reasons as they cannot be said to be included in the definition of information in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The reasons available on record should be provided and the PIO is not expected to post–facto create reasons.

The Act does not permit raising imaginary question and expecting the PIO to find answers for them. The PIO is not expected to confirm or deny some perception of the appellant, which he has about a particular set of information.

Information, which is not compiled and maintained by a public authority, nor is expected to be maintained during the routine course of business, cannot be furnished.

The RTI Act does not require a PIO to generate information, in the form of documents or in electronic form, for satisfying an applicant. The information has to be provided as is available with the public authority.

In many cases, it may be open to debate whether an information sought amounts to opinion/ interpretation / explanation / compilation etc. or not. Therefore, a PIO should exercise due caution while drafting a reply to avoid any lapse. A regular reading of issues relating to RTI like those appearing on this site would come handy in taking a reasoned view.