A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
 
 
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


PIO: Marks data of the Typing test was uploaded on the SSC website for a specific period of time and not readily available - CIC: Information is now required to be created after decoding the available data, which is not the mandate of the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Marks scored by the appellant in exam for Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs & Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF - Respondent: Result of candidate was withheld - CIC: No exemption clause invoked; SCN issued to PIO for arbitrary denial; Provide information     Right to Information Act 2005    Copy of the 10 finger and thumb impressions taken on biometric were denied by UIDAI claiming that sharing of "core biometric information" is prohibited u/s 2(i) of Aadhaar Act - CIC: PIO’s response is legally appropriate; No further intervention necessary     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: 20 Second Appeal cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authorities had already been disposed of by CIC while 9 are listed; Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: FAA’s order set aside holding that the directions for disclosure of information were passed without application of mind; Personal details including educational qualification of other candidates is held by UPSC in as fiduciary, exempt u/s 8(1)(j)     Right to Information Act 2005    Respondent: From where 'Ajit Newspaper' got the said documentary evidence is not on record; While the PIO was providing the information, RTI applicant repeated communications - CIC: It casts immense pressure on CPIOs to provide the correct deduction     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    Degree of an individual is personal and does not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Inordinate delay in the hearing and disposal of second appeals     Right to Information Act 2005    Information Commissioner abdicated the statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government     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.