Introduction
Section 7 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 plays a critical role in ensuring timely access to information from public authorities. By clearly defining the time-bound obligation of the Public Information Officer (PIO), Section 7 helps enforce accountability in governance and prevents unnecessary delays that can obstruct the public’s right to know. It also ensures that applicants are informed of refusals, partial disclosures, or delays with valid reasons, thus protecting the citizen’s right to seek truth from public institutions.
How Does Disposal of RTI Request Under Section 7 Of RTI Act?
Section 7 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 outlines the process and timeline for disposing of information requests. When a Central or State Public Information Officer (PIO) receives a request under Section 6, they must respond as quickly as possible. The law mandates a response, either by providing the information or rejecting the request, within 30 days. If the information concerns life or liberty, the officer must respond within 48 hours.
When the officer fails to act within the given time, the request is considered refused by default. If the information requires a further fee, the PIO must inform the applicant of the cost and show how it was calculated. The countdown for the 30-day limit pauses between sending this fee notice and receiving the payment. Along with the cost, the applicant must also receive details on how to appeal the fee or the access method.
Special provisions exist for sensorily disabled applicants. In such cases, the PIO must offer appropriate assistance to ensure the applicant can inspect or access the records.
If the information is shared in printed or electronic form, the applicant must pay the prescribed fee. However, no fee is charged from those below the poverty line. Also, if the public authority misses the 30-day deadline, the information must be provided free of charge.
Before rejecting a request, the PIO must review any third-party objections under Section 11. If the request is denied, the officer must inform the applicant of the reason for rejection, the appeal timeline, and the details of the appellate authority.
Lastly, the information should be given in the format requested by the applicant unless doing so would overburden the authority’s resources or damage the record’s safety or preservation.
This structured process ensures transparency, timely access, and fairness in handling RTI requests.
What Are The Penalties for Non-Compliance with Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005?
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 imposes strict penalties for failing to meet the deadlines under Section 7. If a Public Information Officer (PIO) does not provide the requested information within 30 days (or 48 hours in cases involving life or liberty), they face monetary penalties. The Central or State Information Commission can impose a fine of ₹250 per day for each day of delay. This fine can go up to a maximum of ₹25,000. Before imposing the penalty, the Commission gives the PIO a fair chance to explain the delay.
In addition to financial penalties, the Commission may also recommend disciplinary action. If the delay is due to negligence, malafide intent, or has no valid reason, the PIO can face disciplinary measures as per their service rules.
Moreover, if the PIO fails to provide the information within the specified time, the applicant has the right to receive the information free of charge. This applies even if a fee would normally be required. These consequences aim to ensure timely and transparent responses from public authorities.
Landmark Case on Section 7 of the RTI Act: R.B. Rai v. Central Information Commission (2010)
A key case interpreting Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 is R.B. Rai v. Central Information Commission (2010). In this case, the applicant filed an RTI request seeking information from a public authority. The Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to respond within the 30-day deadline prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act.
The applicant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC). After examining the facts, the CIC ruled that the delay was unjustified and violated the RTI Act. As a result, the Commission imposed a monetary penalty of ₹25,000 on the PIO under Section 20(1).
The CIC also directed the PIO’s department to consider disciplinary action under service rules due to the negligent handling of the request.
This case reaffirmed the strict timelines under Section 7. It clarified that unreasonable delays attract penalties and possible disciplinary measures. The judgment emphasized that PIOs must comply with the 30-day limit or face legal consequences.
This case serves as an important precedent to ensure transparency, accountability, and timely response in the RTI process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Section 7 of the RTI Act is a cornerstone of transparent governance. Its strict timelines and procedural safeguards uphold the spirit of the RTI law, ensuring that information is not just accessible, but also delivered promptly and fairly. The section empowers citizens by promoting responsiveness and efficiency within public offices. Without Section 7, the RTI mechanism would lack enforceability, rendering it ineffective. Therefore, this provision is vital in protecting democratic values and ensuring that the right to information is not delayed or denied.
