How To Draft a Good RTI Application

When drafting a Right to Information (RTI) application in India, accuracy is extremely crucial. It has been observed that in view of innumerable prevailing interpretations and landmark observations on the subject matter, applicants often face challenges when seeking information that the Act may not obligate such authorities to provide. Precisely, inquiries containing questions beginning with "how," "why," and "where" tend to encounter resistance due to their interpretative nature. For applicants aiming to make successful and effective RTI requests, it is essential to know and understand which types of inquiries are permissible under the RTI Act and how an application may be formulated to make it a success. 

Why Questions Like "Why," "How," and "Where" Can Be Problematic in RTI Applications

Two landmark judgments have contextual relevance: Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission (2008) and Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors. (2010).

Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission (W.P.No.419 of 2007)

In Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission, the Bombay High Court observed  that “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act cannot include within its ambit answers to questions of “why.” According to the Hon’ble court, an RTI application seeking justifications or reasons does not fall under the type of information that the Public Information Officer (PIO) is required to provide. Instead, the PIO’s role is limited to sharing existing information in material form, such as records, documents, memos, emails, reports, and data.

In this case, the Court observed:

"The definition [of information] cannot include within its fold answers to the question 'why,' which would be the same thing as asking the reason for or a justification of a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot be expected to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information."

Thereby it is a clarification that the Public Information Officers’ obligation of disclosure does not extend to explanations or justifications. Therefore, applications that seek interpretive responses, like "Why was this decision taken" or "Why was this process followed," are beyond the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further discussed the boundaries of the information that can be sought through RTI in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors. The Court underscored that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information is defined as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, and other recorded data. The ruling emphasized:

"An applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get a copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., have been passed."

This observation clearly reinforces that while an applicant can seek copies of orders, circulars, and opinions, but cannot demand explanations as to why a public authority made a particular decision or an order has been passed.

What may be inferred from such landmark judgments is that there are certain words or phrases that should definitely excluded from the application in order to avoid rejection or delay.

1. "Why" – Questions beginning with "why" imply a request for justification or reasoning
2. "How" – Questions asking "how" a decision was made often imply a request for an explanation 
3. "Where" – Questions beginning with "where" may sometimes imply asking for interpretations rather than specific records or documents.
4. Interpretative Language – Avoid vague queries that may require subjective interpretation, opinions, or analysis, as they are likely to be rejected as they may be categorized as outside the scope of “information” under the RTI Act

Therefore to increase successful responses to RTI applications the aforesaid precautions must always be taken before filing the application. Ignorance of it will, in all probabilities result in rejection. 

Essential Elements for an Effective RTI Application

In addition to certain precautions, there are certain specific elements that must be a part of any well-drafted application. These phrases are reflective of the applicant's understanding of the act and prevailing general practices of RTI.

1. “All information being sought is not protected under any of the exceptions under the aforementioned act.”

• By underscoring that the sought information does not fall under any exception i.e. Section 8 and 9, the applicants affirm that the requested information is not exempted under the Act’s provisions, such as national security, privacy, or third-party information.

2. “I request you to kindly supply/furnish me with copies of the requested information duly certified/endorsed to my correspondence address by registered/speed post” 
   • The above statement is clearly indicatory to the fact that the applicant intends a certified copy of the reply and it also hold greater legal value.
3. Section 6(3) Transfer Clause

“I also request you to forward/transfer this application u/s 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 if one or a few information is not available with CPIO or your office.”

This provision under Section 6(3) ensures that if the requested information is held by another public authority, the PIO is under an obligation to transfer the application to the relevant department, eliminating the need for the applicant to resubmit.

Conclusion

When drafting an RTI application, precision and adherence to the statutory definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act are key. Legal precedents established by cases such as Dr. Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information Commission and Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer and Ors. remind applicants that inquiries should avoid interpretative language or demands for justifications. The right to information in India grants access to documented, recorded data but does not extend to explanations, opinions, or reasons. By focusing on specific, documented information and excluding open-ended inquiries, applicants can optimize their chances of receiving complete, timely, and actionable responses under the RTI Act.