Administration of the Act — the RTI machinery and rule-making (ss. 27–28) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Administration of the Act — the RTI machinery and rule-making (ss. 27–28)

A statute cannot foresee the price of a photocopy or the exact form of an appeal. So the RTI Act leaves those working details to subordinate legislation — rules made by the government and by rule-making authorities like the Speaker and the Chief Justice. Sections 27 and 28 are the quiet plumbing that lets the whole machine run in practice.

The rule-making machinery

The Act’s day-to-day working — fees, forms, procedures — is filled in by rules. Two provisions confer the power.

A. Rules by the appropriate Government (s. 27)

The appropriate Government (Central or State) may, by notification, make rules to carry out the Act — in particular fixing the fee for applications and appeals and for supplying information, the cost of providing information, the salaries and service conditions of Commission officers and staff, and the procedure the Commission follows in deciding appeals. This is where the fee schedules and appeal-procedure rules come from.

B. Rules by the competent authority (s. 28)

The competent authority (s. 2(e) — the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or a State Assembly, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or a Council, the Chief Justice of India for the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a High Court for that Court, and the President/Governor for other authorities) may make rules for its own institution — the fee payable, the cost of information, and the procedure for its own PIOs. This lets the legislature and the judiciary regulate RTI within their own houses, respecting the separation of powers.

C. The wider machinery

Around these rule-making powers sit the rest of the administrative scaffolding: the PIOs and APIOs (ss. 5–6, Unit 2), the suo motu publication duty (s. 4, Unit 2), the Information Commissions (ss. 12–17), the appeal and penalty provisions (ss. 19–20), the s. 26 duty to educate and train, and the s. 22 overriding effect. Rules under ss. 27–28 must be laid before Parliament or the State Legislature (s. 29 / s. 30 provide the laying and removal-of-difficulties machinery). Together these turn the right into a working system.

Section 27(1), RTI Act, 2005: “The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.”

Section 28(1), RTI Act, 2005: “The competent authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.”

In Simple Terms: The Act leaves the fine print — fees, forms, appeal procedure — to rules. The Government makes these rules for ordinary public authorities (s. 27); the Speaker, the Chief Justice and other “competent authorities” make them for their own institutions (s. 28). It is the housekeeping that keeps the RTI machine running.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the 16-mark note on administration

Facts. “Explain the administration and rule-making machinery of the RTI Act.” (16 marks)

Rule. ss. 27–28: rules by the appropriate Government (fees, cost, Commission procedure) and by the competent authority (each institution for itself), set within the wider machinery of PIOs, Commissions, appeals and penalties.

Apply. Explain s. 27 (Government rules) and s. 28 (competent-authority rules) with examples of what each covers, then place them inside the whole machine — PIOs, s. 4 disclosure, Commissions, appeals, penalties, s. 22 override — so the reader sees the rules as the connective tissue.

Conclusion. A structured answer that separates the two rule-making powers and situates them in the overall machinery scores full marks.

flowchart TD
    A["Administration & rule-making of the Act"]
    A --> B["s. 27: appropriate Government rules —<br/>fees, cost, staff, Commission's appeal procedure"]
    A --> C["s. 28: competent authority rules —<br/>Speaker, CJI, HC Chief Justice, President/Governor for own institution"]
    A --> D["Wider machinery: PIOs (5-6) · suo motu (4) ·<br/>Commissions (12-17) · appeals & penalty (19-20) · override (22)"]
    B --> E["Rules laid before Parliament / State Legislature (ss. 29-30)"]
    C --> E
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E box;

Case Laws

Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2012 / 2013) — the Court touched on the rules and procedure governing the Commissions’ functioning, confirming their quasi-judicial character within the statutory machinery.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics