RTI Act Misinterpretation: How PIOs Weaponize Section 7(9) to Deny Transparency

RTI Act misinterpretation of Section 7(9) lets PIOs deny valid requests. Learn how this loophole is misused — and how to challenge it.

RTI Act misinterpretation has become one of the most persistent obstacles to transparency in India. The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as “sunlight.” Specifically, it was meant to bleach away the stains of corruption and administrative opacity in India. Twenty years into its implementation, however, a troubling trend has emerged. Indeed, PIOs are systematically misinterpreting technical provisions to stifle legitimate inquiries. One of the most frequently abused provisions, in particular, is Section 7(9).

For example, in a recent case, Yogi M P Singh (Registration No: DIRMH/R/2024/61586) filed an RTI application. Specifically, he sought information on the availability of life-saving Tuberculosis (TB) medications. In response, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Mirzapur rejected the inquiry by citing Section 7(9). This case therefore serves as a perfect case study. Above all, it shows why the current interpretation of this section by many Public Information Officers (PIOs) is not only legally flawed. In addition, it is morally bankrupt.

---

Understanding Section 7(9): A Facilitative Tool, Not an Exemption

To understand the depth of this RTI Act misinterpretation, we must first look at what the law actually says. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act states:

“An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”

The Core Intent

First, the word “form” is the operative term here. Essentially, lawmakers designed this section to protect public authorities from unreasonable requests. For instance, consider an example: an applicant asks a small village office to digitize 50,000 hand-written pages within 30 days. Clearly, that request could genuinely strain the office’s resources. Accordingly, Section 7(9) exists for cases exactly like this one.

Crucially, Section 7(9) is not an exemption clause. After all, exemptions remain strictly confined to Section 8 and Section 9 of the Act. Section 7(9), by contrast, is a procedural directive. In other words, it governs how information gets delivered, not whether it gets delivered at all.

So, if providing information in a specific “form” proves too taxing, the PIO has options. For example, a compiled Excel sheet might be difficult to prepare quickly. In that case, the law requires an alternative. Specifically, the PIO must legally offer the applicant a chance to inspect the raw registers instead. Ultimately, rejecting the request entirely is not a lawful option.

---

The Case Study: RTI Act Misinterpretation vs. The CMO Mirzapur

Yogi M P Singh’s RTI sought critical data on healthcare infrastructure in Mirzapur. The queries were specific. Moreover, they were urgent, given the subject matter:

1. The reason why digital X-rays are prescribed if the facility is unavailable at the TB isolation center.
2. Expenditure on TB medicines for the financial year 2022–23.
3. Expenditure on TB medicines for the financial year 2023–24.
4. Circulars allowing doctors to prescribe medicines from private stores.
5. Reasons for the non-availability of complete testing facilities for a contagious disease like TB.

Notably, each question targeted a discrete, factual matter. None of them called for subjective judgment or speculation. Instead, they simply asked for records the office should already hold.

The PIO’s Failure

Nevertheless, the PIO (CMO Mirzapur) rejected the request. The remark was brief: “INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED UNDER RTI ACT 7(9).” Furthermore, no explanation followed.

In doing so, the PIO committed a double error. First, the information sought — budgetary expenditure and government circulars — qualifies as “held” data. Therefore, producing it should not require a disproportionate diversion of resources. After all, a ledger entry or a filed circular does not take weeks to locate. Second, even if the data had been voluminous, Section 7(9) still would not apply here. Instead, the section only allows a change in the format of delivery. In short, it does not authorize withholding the information altogether.

---

Deconstructing the RTI Act Misinterpretation of Section 7(9)

When a PIO uses Section 7(9) as a shield, the message is clear. Essentially, they are claiming that the public’s right to know matters less than administrative convenience. However, that claim does not hold up under scrutiny, for several distinct reasons.

1. The “Exemption” Fallacy

Many PIOs treat Section 7(9) as if it were Section 8(1). However, it is not. In fact, the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have repeatedly clarified this point. Specifically, Section 7(9) does not permit the denial of information under any circumstance. Consequently, if a PIO cannot provide a “compiled” report, they have a duty. Instead, they must invite the applicant for a Section 2(j) inspection of the records.

2. The Burden of Proof

Meanwhile, the law places the burden of proof on the PIO, not the applicant. To invoke Section 7(9), the PIO must demonstrate how the resources would be disproportionately diverted. However, a vague, unsupported statement is not sufficient and is a violation of the Act. Indeed, courts and commissions have made this clear time and again.

In the Mirzapur case, for instance, the failure is stark. Providing the total amount spent on medicines is a single figure from a ledger. Therefore, that task can hardly count as a “disproportionate diversion of resources.” Ultimately, no reasonable PIO could argue otherwise with a straight face.

3. Subjectivity as a Weapon

Additionally, what constitutes “disproportionate” remains inherently subjective. As a result, this ambiguity creates an opening, and some PIOs exploit it. Specifically, they use vague language to avoid disclosing embarrassing information. For example, one instance involves a potential shortage of TB medicines. Another example is the collusion between government doctors and private pharmacies. In short, the vagueness of the word “disproportionate” becomes a convenient excuse rather than a genuine constraint.

---

The Human Cost: TB and Public Accountability

This RTI Act misinterpretation is not merely a legal debate. Rather, it carries real-world consequences for real patients. In this specific instance, the information sought pertains to Tuberculosis. Notably, this is a disease the Indian government has pledged to eliminate by 2025. Specifically, that target falls under the Pradhan Mantri TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan.

For example, when a PIO refuses to disclose why low-income patients must travel to private clinics for X-rays, the silence matters. Similarly, it matters when medicine stocks run low without explanation. As a result, such refusals actively sabotage a national health mission. Meanwhile, transparency in medicine procurement remains the only real safeguard here. Specifically, it helps ensure that funds meant for low-income communities are not siphoned off elsewhere.

Consequently, by hiding behind Section 7(9), the medical authorities in Mirzapur avoid accountability. Specifically, they avoid it for what could be a genuine public health crisis. Meanwhile, patients suffering from TB cannot wait for bureaucratic delays. After all, delayed diagnosis and treatment can mean the difference between recovery and severe illness. Ultimately, every month of obscured records is a month where accountability slips further away.

---

Judicial and Commission Perspectives

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has weighed in on this exact issue many times. Specifically, in numerous rulings, it has reprimanded PIOs for similar behavior. For instance, in Sarvesh Kaushal vs. Cabinet Secretariat, the Commission made an important observation. Namely, Section 7(9) exists to facilitate the supply of information. In other words, it was never meant to act as a hurdle.

Furthermore, when a PIO denies information, the law imposes clear obligations. Specifically, under Section 7(8), the PIO must strictly provide the following:

• The reasons for such rejection.
• The period within which an appeal may be preferred.
• The details of the Appellate Authority.

However, the Mirzapur CMO’s rejection failed on all three counts. Instead, it offered only a vague “Others” category. Additionally, a dismissive remark accompanied it, with no substantive explanation. Overall, this falls well short of what the law demands from any PIO.

---

Recommendations for Reform: Ending RTI Act Misinterpretation

Clearly, the “Mirzapur Model” of rejection should not become standard practice elsewhere. Therefore, preventing that outcome requires concrete steps from multiple stakeholders.

• Strict Penalties: First, Information Commissions should move beyond mere warnings. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, real penalties already exist on paper. Accordingly, commissions ought to impose ₹250 per day, up to ₹25,000, on PIOs. Specifically, this penalty should apply when a PIO willfully misinterprets Section 7(9) to deny information.
• Mandatory Training: Additionally, PIOs often lack formal legal training in this area. Therefore, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has an important role to play. Specifically, it must conduct mandatory workshops on the RTI Act’s finer points. Above all, these workshops should focus on one key distinction. Namely, that distinction is between procedural form under Section 7 and substantive exemptions under Section 8.
• Proactive Disclosure: Finally, under Section 4(1)(b), public authorities carry an existing obligation. Specifically, they must proactively publish their budgets and expenditures without being asked. Indeed, had the CMO Mirzapur complied with Section 4, this entire dispute might never have arisen. Consequently, the applicant would not have needed to file an RTI for medicine expenditure at all.

Beyond these three measures, broader accountability mechanisms matter too. For instance, independent audits of PIO decisions could catch patterns of misuse earlier. Similarly, public dashboards tracking RTI rejection rates by office could also help. After all, sunlight works best when it reaches every corner consistently.

---

Conclusion

In summary, the rejection of Yogi M P Singh’s RTI request offers a textbook example of RTI Act misinterpretation. Specifically, it shows administrative evasion dressed up as legal technicality. After all, Section 7(9) was never meant to serve as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Therefore, officers who find transparency inconvenient should not get to use it that way.

Ultimately, public health is at stake here. Likewise, so is the integrity of a national mission to eliminate TB. Consequently, officials cannot use “preservation of records” as an excuse. Indeed, that excuse should never justify preserving the status quo of inefficiency. For these reasons, it is time for the Higher Appellate Authorities to step in. Specifically, they should overturn this flawed decision without further delay.

Most importantly, the Mirzapur medical department needs a reminder. Namely, its officers are “Public Information Officers,” not “Public Secrecy Officers.” This distinction is not merely semantic. Rather, it reflects the very purpose the RTI Act was written to serve: an informed public, and an accountable state.