How do I file an RTI application in India? What information can I request?

Start by identifying the correct public authority. Central Government matters go to central ministries and their agencies; state matters go to state departments; municipal matters go to your local corporation. Every authority designates one or more Public Information Officers (PIOs), listed on the authority's website. If you can't identify the right PIO, address the application to "Public Information Officer, [Authority Name]" — Section 6(3) obligates the receiving PIO to transfer it to the correct one within five days.

The application itself can be on plain paper. It must contain your name and address, a citizenship confirmation, and clearly numbered questions or specific document requests. Frame questions narrowly ("Provide copies of file notings on File No. X between DD/MM/YYYY and DD/MM/YYYY") — PIOs use vague or opinion-seeking questions to refuse or delay. Avoid asking why decisions were made; ask for the underlying records instead. Attach an Indian Postal Order (IPO) or DD for ₹10 as fee, unless you're filing at the Central RTI Online Portal where you pay by card. BPL applicants pay nothing on producing the card.

Submit through whichever channel gets you a dated acknowledgement: online portal, registered post with AD, in-person delivery with a stamped receipt, or (where accepted) email. The registration number and date of PIO's receipt are what your entire timeline depends on. The PIO must respond within 30 days — 48 hours if the request concerns life or liberty, 45 days for information touching corruption or human rights involving Schedule II bodies. Responses typically arrive as one of: full information, partial information with specific exemptions cited, "information not available", or silence. Silence is treated as constructive refusal — trigger the first appeal on day 31.

Section 8 lists ten exemptions, and PIOs invoke them liberally. Section 8(1)(a) covers information affecting national sovereignty, security, foreign relations or investigations that would incite an offence. Section 8(1)(b) shields information the courts have expressly forbidden. Section 8(1)(c) protects Parliamentary and legislative privilege. Section 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property — is one of the most-abused; the proviso allows disclosure if larger public interest warrants, and appellate authorities have applied this proviso vigorously. Section 8(1)(e) shields fiduciary information (bank-customer, lawyer-client). Section 8(1)(f) covers information from foreign governments. Section 8(1)(g) protects informants where disclosure would endanger physical safety.

The other three deserve close attention. Section 8(1)(h) — ongoing investigation — is the most frequently misused. The Central Information Commission has repeatedly held that PIOs must show how disclosure would actually impede the specific investigation, not merely assert the existence of one. Section 8(1)(i) shields Cabinet papers pre-decision, but expressly permits disclosure of decisions and reasons after the decision is taken. Section 8(1)(j) — personal information without public interest — was significantly rewritten by the DPDPA 2023 Section 44(3) amendment, tightening it in ways civil society is still contesting; the safest position is that officials' work-related information remains disclosable but private life details do not.

Section 24 exempts intelligence and security organisations in Schedule II (IB, RAW, NTRO, CBI etc.), with a critical carve-out — allegations of corruption and human rights violations remain disclosable with Commission approval. The Supreme Court has narrowed these exemptions repeatedly. In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 answer sheets became accessible. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO, Supreme Court, (2019) 3 SCC 481 made judges' assets disclosable. RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525 confirmed inspection reports of banks are within the RTI net. When a PIO cites an exemption, quote the specific proviso, cite these judgments, and invoke Section 8(2) — the public-interest override that lets you argue the public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected harm.

RTI has a two-tier appeal system. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) is a senior officer in the same public authority designated for this role. File within 30 days of receiving the PIO's decision or, if the PIO went silent, within 30 days after day 30. There's no fee. The appeal is a letter reciting the original RTI, the PIO's response (or its absence), and the grounds — vague exemption invocation, incomplete disclosure, excessive fee demand, or non-response. Enclose copies of the original application and any PIO reply. The FAA must decide within 30 days (extendable to 45 with reasons recorded), and has authority to overturn the PIO, direct specific disclosure, reduce fees, or record the timeline for compliance.

If the FAA's decision is unsatisfactory or the FAA also goes silent, the second appeal goes to the Central Information Commission (for central authorities, cic.gov.in) or the State Information Commission. File within 90 days of the FAA's order or expiry of the FAA decision period. Most states accept the appeal free of cost. The filing package: original RTI, PIO response, first appeal, FAA order, and grounds of second appeal. Both CIC and SICs now hear appeals through video conference. Expect 3–12 months for disposal, longer where the Commission has vacancy backlog.

The Information Commission's power is what makes RTI real. It can direct disclosure and impose Section 20 penalty on the PIO personally — ₹250 per day of delay, capped at ₹25,000, recoverable from salary. It can recommend disciplinary action, order compensation, and direct the public authority to publish proactively. The Section 20 penalty is a strong deterrent because it hits the individual officer, not the department. If the Commission's order itself is defective, a writ under Article 226 to the High Court is the next step — used sparingly, mostly for jurisdictional errors or perversity. Appeal drafting benefits from citing prior Commission precedents (searchable in the CIC decisions database) and the Supreme Court judgments narrowing exemptions.

Personal grievances form the bulk of RTI filings: pension application status, reasons for visa or scholarship rejection, property mutation delays, tax refund holdups, ration card eligibility disputes, government scheme enrolment status. For these, RTI is often faster than the internal grievance mechanism. Educational uses have expanded since CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay made answer sheets accessible — students routinely obtain their evaluated papers, marking schemes, and moderation records after board and university exams.

Property and land records are a huge use case: land records, mutation status, encumbrance details, building plan approvals, conversion orders, and notifications affecting a specific property. Municipal accountability is another: road construction expenditure, garbage management contracts, streetlight maintenance data, property tax assessment basis. For PWD and infrastructure work, RTIs extract tender documents, bid evaluations, contractor performance records and payment status — often the raw material for later PILs or media stories.

Government scheme transparency (PM Kisan beneficiaries, MGNREGA work allocation, ration card eligibility, housing scheme allotments), banking accountability (RBI inspection findings after Jayantilal Mistry, loan disbursement criteria at PSU banks), police accountability (FIR copies, investigation status, disciplinary action against officers) and election-related information (candidates' expenditure declarations, booth-level data) all sit within RTI's reach. Systemic scandals — 2G spectrum allocation, Adarsh Housing Society, Commonwealth Games expenditure, delayed NREGA payments — were substantially exposed through sustained RTI campaigns by civil society groups like MKSS, the Public Cause Research Foundation, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Satark Nagrik Sangathan. Effective use demands specificity, persistence through appeals, and awareness of Commission precedents.

Two recent legal changes have narrowed RTI's scope. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 gave the Central Government power to fix Information Commissioners' tenure, salary and allowances by rules — replacing the earlier five-year tenure. Civil society groups have challenged this as an erosion of Commission independence, and the litigation is ongoing. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j) via its Section 44(3), removing the qualifying phrase that had limited the "personal information" exemption to information "which has no relationship to any public activity or interest". PIOs are now invoking this expanded personal-information ground more frequently to deny information about public officials, and how the Commissions apply it in practice is still being tested.

Section 24's exemption of Schedule II bodies has expanded over time — CBI was added in 2011, and periodic proposals to add more security organisations continue. Resource constraints on the Commissions themselves are a practical limitation: vacancies remain unfilled for months, backlogs stretch into years in several states, and staffing has not kept pace with filings. Effective use of RTI now requires realistic timelines and often parallel legal routes for urgent matters.

Common PIO evasion tactics — transferring to a wrong department, invoking Section 8(1)(h) investigation without specifics, invoking Section 8(1)(j) as a blanket, quoting excessive fees, or simply going silent — can be countered by citing specific Act provisions, invoking Section 8(2) public interest override, quickly filing the first appeal, escalating to the Commission if patterns emerge, and threatening Section 20 penalty in the appeal. The system rewards persistence and precision. For those without resources, DLSA and NALSA (helpline 15100) offer free legal aid, and civil society groups (Satark Nagrik Sangathan, NCPRI, CHRI) actively support RTI users. Whistleblower protection remains a serious gap — over 100 RTI activists have been killed since 2005, and the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 remains only partially notified.