What a PIO reply looks like, and why RTIs get delayed

Two things decide whether an RTI actually gets you the record: knowing what a compliant reply must contain, and knowing why replies run late. This page covers both, and it is the reference our service pages link to so the explanation lives in one place.

What the reply must contain

Under Section 7(1), the PIO must either provide the information on payment of the prescribed fee or reject the request for a reason specified in Sections 8 or 9 — as expeditiously as possible and in any case within thirty days. Where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, that period is forty-eight hours.

What the Act requires the reply to state depends on what the PIO decides:

• If the request is rejected, Section 7(8) requires the PIO to communicate the reasons for the rejection, the period within which an appeal may be preferred, and the particulars of the appellate authority.
• If a further fee is payable for the cost of providing the information, Section 7(3) requires an intimation setting out the amount together with the calculations used to arrive at it, and information about your right to seek a review of the fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority.
• If the public authority missed the time limit in Section 7(1), Section 7(6) entitles you to the information free of charge.

Why replies sometimes take longer than thirty days

Several of the common causes are consequences of the Act's own machinery rather than mere administrative drift:

• The information sits with a different public authority. Under Section 6(3) the application must be transferred to the appropriate public authority as soon as practicable and in any case within five days, and you must be informed of the transfer.
• The PIO needs another officer's help. Section 5(4) lets the PIO seek the assistance of any other officer. Under Section 5(5) that officer must render assistance and, for the purposes of any contravention of the Act, is treated as a PIO — which is a liability provision, not a rule that installs a replacement PIO whenever the notified one is unavailable.
• A further fee has been raised. Under Section 7(3)(a), the period between despatch of the fee intimation and payment of the fee is excluded when computing the thirty days, so the clock legitimately pauses at that stage.
• The application went to an Assistant PIO. The proviso to Section 5(2) adds five days to the response period when an application is given to an APIO.
• Older records are not readily traceable. Where a matter is old, locating the file can take time. You can ask for the record of the file's movement and for what the authority currently holds — though an RTI requests records, it cannot compel a department to recreate a record it does not hold.

If the department misses the deadline

Silence is itself a decision: under Section 7(2), failure to give a decision within the period specified in Section 7(1) means the PIO is deemed to have refused the request. A deemed refusal can be appealed under Section 19(1), which allows an appeal within thirty days to the officer senior in rank to the PIO in that public authority. Our RTI Deadline Clock works out the dates for your application, and the First Appeal Generator drafts the appeal.

Statutory text checked against the Right to Information Act, 2005 on India Code (Sections 5, 6, 7 and 19). Fee amounts are prescribed by the applicable Central or State RTI Rules and are not stated here; the PIO's own intimation under Section 7(3) carries the amount and its calculation.