Public Information Officers — designation and duties (ss. 5, 6(3)) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Public Information Officers — designation and duties (ss. 5, 6(3))

Everything in the Act flows through one officer. He receives your application, decides it, transfers it if it is misdirected, and — if he obstructs you — pays the penalty out of his own pocket. That officer is the Public Information Officer (PIO). Learn him well; he appears in every problem in this subject.

The pivot of the Act

Section 5 requires every public authority to designate its PIOs; s. 6(3) governs what a PIO does with a misdirected application.

A. Designation (s. 5(1)–(2))

Within 100 days of the Act, every public authority must designate Central/State Public Information Officers in all its administrative units, and Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) at the sub-district level to receive applications and appeals and forward them.

B. The APIO’s limited role

An APIO only receives and forwards — he does not decide. This matters for time-limits: when an application is filed with an APIO, five extra days are added to the PIO’s clock (recognising the forwarding time).

C. Duty to deal with requests (s. 5(3)–(5))

The PIO must deal with requests and render reasonable assistance to applicants — including reducing an oral request to writing where the applicant cannot write (s. 6(1) proviso). The PIO may seek the assistance of any other officer, who is then treated as a PIO for that purpose and is equally liable.

D. Transfer of a misdirected application (s. 6(3))

If the information sought is held by another public authority (or is closer to another authority’s functions), the PIO must transfer the application — or the relevant part — to that authority and inform the applicant, and he must do so within five days. Failure to transfer within five days is itself a default that can attract penalty (Unit 3, s. 20).

Section 6(3), RTI Act, 2005: “Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information — (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority… shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer… Provided that the transfer… shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.”

In Simple Terms: Every department must name a PIO to answer RTI requests and APIOs to receive them. The PIO must help the applicant, can rope in other officers (who become liable too), and must forward a wrongly-addressed application to the right department within five days.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — PIO vs APIO

A PIO decides the request and is personally liable to penalty under s. 20. An APIO only receives and forwards applications and appeals; he does not decide, and filing with an APIO adds five days to the PIO’s time-limit. Writing “the APIO rejected the application under s. 8” mis-states the scheme — an APIO has no power to reject.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the misdirected application

Facts. A files a request with Department X for records actually held by Department Y. X sits on it for a month, then rejects it as “not our records”.

Rule. s. 6(3): the PIO of X must transfer the application to Y within five days and inform the applicant.

Apply. X had no power to simply reject; it was bound to transfer within five days. Sitting on it for a month is a default that can attract s. 20 penalty and starts A’s time running afresh at Y.

Conclusion. X’s rejection is unlawful; the remedy is transfer under s. 6(3), and X’s PIO risks penalty for the delay.

flowchart TD
    A["Public authority (s. 5)"]
    A --> B["PIO — decides requests; liable to penalty"]
    A --> C["APIO — receives & forwards only (+5 days)"]
    B --> D["Held by another authority?<br/>Transfer within 5 days (s. 6(3))"]
    B --> E["May seek help of other officers (s. 5(4)-(5))"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E box;

Case Laws

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) — the PIO is central to the machinery; failures at the PIO stage are what the complaint/appeal remedies address.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — the PIO must render reasonable assistance and decide within the Act’s framework.

📄 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