Procedure to obtain information — request (s. 6) and disposal (s. 7) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Procedure to obtain information — request (s. 6) and disposal (s. 7)

The genius of the RTI Act is a clock. From the day you file, the PIO has thirty days to answer — and if a life is at stake, just forty-eight hours. Miss the deadline, and the information becomes free. That clock is what makes the right enforceable, and it is what every procedure problem tests.

The request (s. 6)

A. Form and fee

A request is made in writing or through electronic means, in English, Hindi or the official language of the area, with the prescribed fee. If the applicant cannot write, the PIO must reduce the oral request to writing and help him (s. 6(1) proviso) — an important duty, not a courtesy.

B. No reasons (s. 6(2))

The applicant need give no reason and no personal detail except contact information (see Topic 2).

C. Transfer (s. 6(3))

Misdirected applications are transferred within five days (see Topic 5).

The disposal (s. 7) — the time-limits

This is the heart of the topic. Learn the branches of the clock.

Ordinary time-limit: 30 days from receipt of the request (s. 7(1)).
Life and liberty: 48 hours. Where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, it must be provided within forty-eight hours (s. 7(1)).
Third party involved: 40 days. Where a third-party notice under s. 11 is needed, the limit extends to forty days (s. 11(3) read with s. 7(7)).
Via an APIO: +5 days. Add five days when the request was filed with an APIO.
Deemed refusal (s. 7(2)): if the PIO fails to decide within the time-limit, he is deemed to have refused the request — which lets the applicant appeal.
Fee and further fee (s. 7(3)): the PIO may charge a further fee for supplying the information (e.g. photocopying), telling the applicant the calculation and his right to appeal against it; the clock is paused between the intimation of further fee and its payment.
Free information (s. 7(6)): if the PIO fails to comply within the time-limit, the information must be provided free of charge. This is the sanction that gives the clock its teeth.
Reasons for rejection (s. 7(8)): if a request is rejected, the PIO must give the reasons, the period within which an appeal may be preferred, and the particulars of the appellate authority.

Section 7(1), RTI Act, 2005: “…the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer… shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request… Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.”

In Simple Terms: Apply in writing or electronically with a small fee, giving no reason. The PIO must answer in 30 days — 48 hours if life or liberty is involved. Silence counts as refusal (so you can appeal), and if the PIO misses the deadline the information becomes free.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — the 48-hour track vs the “applicant’s own urgency”

The 48-hour limit applies only where the information itself concerns the life or liberty of a person (a doctor’s qualifications before urgent surgery). An applicant cannot manufacture urgency by saying “I need it in 48 hours” — a fixed personal deadline has no legal force. In the anticipatory-bail problem (accused demands case information within 48 hours), the tight deadline is a decoy: it neither shortens nor overrides the s. 8(1)(h) protection of a live investigation.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the illiterate applicant’s oral request

Facts. An illiterate person approaches the PIO and asks orally for information; the PIO says a request must be in writing.

Rule. s. 6(1) proviso: where the applicant cannot make the request in writing, the PIO shall render all reasonable assistance to reduce it to writing.

Apply. Decoy: “a request must be in writing.” True in general, but the proviso obliges the PIO to reduce the oral request to writing for someone who cannot write. Refusing is a breach of duty.

Conclusion. The PIO must put the oral request in writing and process it; refusal can attract the appeal/penalty machinery.

flowchart TD
    A["Request u/s 6 (writing/electronic, fee, no reason)"]
    A --> B{"What does it concern?"}
    B -->|"Life or liberty"| C["48 hours (s. 7(1))"]
    B -->|"Ordinary"| D["30 days (s. 7(1))"]
    B -->|"Third party (s. 11)"| E["40 days (s. 11(3))"]
    D --> F{"PIO answers in time?"}
    C --> F
    E --> F
    F -->|"No"| G["Deemed refusal (7(2)) + info free (7(6))"]
    F -->|"Yes, rejects"| H["Reasons + appeal details (7(8))"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,D,E,G,H box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B,F q;

Case Laws

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — the Act’s timelines and procedures are designed to make access swift and cheap; PIOs must respect them.
Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) — deemed refusal and delay feed the complaint/appeal remedies.

📄 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