The Misuse of Section 7(9): How PIOs Weaponize Logic to Deny Transparency
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would bleach away the stains of corruption and administrative opacity in India. However, twenty years into its implementation, a troubling trend has emerged: the systematic misinterpretation of technical provisions to stifle legitimate inquiries. One of the most frequently abused provisions is Section 7(9).
In a recent case involving Yogi M P Singh (Registration No: DIRMH/R/2024/61586), the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Mirzapur rejected an inquiry into the availability of life-saving Tuberculosis (TB) medications by citing Section 7(9). This case serves as a perfect case study for why the current interpretation of this section by many Public Information Officers (PIOs) is not only legally flawed but morally bankrupt.
Understanding Section 7(9): A Facilitative Tool, Not an Exemption
To understand the depth of the 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 ques1tion.”
The Core Intent
The word “form” is the operative term here. This section was designed to protect public authorities from unreasonable requests—for instance, if an applicant asks a small village office to digitize 50,000 hand-written pages within 30 days.
Crucially, Section 7(9) is not an exemption clause. Exemptions are strictly confined to Section 8 and Section 9 of the Act. Section 7(9) is a procedural directive. If providing information in a specific “form” (e.g., a compiled Excel sheet) is too taxing, the PIO is legally obligated to offer the information in an alternative form (e.g., allowing the applicant to inspect the raw registers), rather than rejecting the request entirely.
The Case Study: Transparency vs. The CMO Mirzapur
The RTI filed by Yogi M P Singh sought critical data regarding the healthcare infrastructure in Mirzapur. The queries were specific and urgent:
- The reason why digital X-rays are prescribed if the facility is unavailable at the TB isolation center.
- Expenditure on TB medicines for the financial year 2022-23.
- Expenditure on TB medicines for the financial year 2023-24.
- Circulars allowing doctors to prescribe medicines from private stores.
- Reasons for the non-availability of complete testing facilities for a contagious disease like TB.
The PIO’s Failure
The PIO (CMO Mirzapur) rejected the request with the brief remark: “INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED UNDER RTI ACT 7 (9).”
By doing so, the PIO committed a double error. First, the information sought—budgetary expenditure and government circulars—is “held” data that does not require “disproportionate diversion of resources” to produce. Second, even if the data was voluminous, Section 7(9) does not grant the power to “not provide” information; it only allows for a change in the format of delivery.
Deconstructing the Misinterpretation
When a PIO uses Section 7(9) as a shield to deny information, they are essentially claiming that the public’s right to know is less important than the administrative convenience of the office.
1. The “Exemption” Fallacy
Many PIOs treat Section 7(9) as if it were Section 8(1). However, the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have repeatedly clarified that Section 7(9) does not permit the denial of information. If a PIO cannot provide a “compiled” report, they must invite the applicant for a Section 2(j) inspection of the records.
2. The Burden of Proof
The law places the “burden of proof” on the PIO. To invoke Section 7(9), the PIO must demonstrate how the resources would be disproportionately diverted. A blanket statement without evidence is a violation of the Act. In the Mirzapur case, providing the total amount spent on medicines (a single figure from a ledger) can hardly be described as a “disproportionate diversion of resources.”
3. Subjectivity as a Weapon
What constitutes “disproportionate” is subjective. PIOs often use this ambiguity to avoid disclosing embarrassing information—such as the potential shortage of TB medicines or the collusion between government doctors and private pharmacies.
The Human Cost: TB and Public Accountability
The misuse of RTI provisions is not just a legal debate; it has real-world consequences. In this specific instance, the information sought pertains to Tuberculosis, a disease that the Indian government has pledged to eliminate by 2025 (Pradhan Mantri TB Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan).
When a PIO refuses to disclose why poor patients are being forced to go to private clinics for X-rays or why medicine stocks are low, they are actively sabotaging a national health mission. Transparency in the procurement of medicines is the only way to ensure that funds meant for the poor are not being siphoned off. By hiding behind Section 7(9), the medical authorities in Mirzapur are avoiding accountability for a potential public health crisis.
Judicial and Commission Perspectives
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has, in numerous rulings, reprimanded PIOs for this exact behavior. In Sarvesh Kaushal vs. Cabinet Secretariat, the Commission noted that Section 7(9) is intended to facilitate the supply of information, not to act as a hurdle.
Furthermore, if the information is denied, the PIO must strictly follow Section 7(8), which requires them to provide:
- The reasons for such rejection.
- The period within which an appeal may be preferred.
- The details of the Appellate Authority.
The Mirzapur CMO’s rejection failed on all these counts, providing a vague “Others” category with a dismissive remark.
Recommendations for Reform
To prevent the “Mirzapur Model” of rejection from becoming the standard operating procedure, several steps must be taken:
- Strict Penalties: Information Commissions must move beyond mere warnings. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, penalties of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) should be slapped on PIOs who willfully misinterpret Section 7(9) to deny information.
- Mandatory Training: PIOs often lack formal legal training. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) must conduct mandatory workshops focusing specifically on the distinction between procedural form (Section 7) and substantive exemptions (Section 8).
- Proactive Disclosure: Under Section 4(1)(b), public authorities are supposed to proactively publish their budgets and expenditures. If the CMO Mirzapur had complied with Section 4, the applicant would not have needed to file an RTI for medicine expenditure in the first place.
Conclusion
The rejection of Yogi M P Singh’s RTI request is a textbook example of administrative evasion. Section 7(9) was never meant to be a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for officers who find transparency inconvenient.
When the health of the public and the integrity of a national mission are at stake, the “preservation of records” cannot be used as an excuse to preserve the status quo of inefficiency. It is time for the Higher Appellate Authorities to step in, overturn this flawed decision, and remind the Mirzapur medical department that they are “Public Information Officers,” not “Public Secrecy Officers.
Based on the case details you provided, here is the structured breakdown of the Application ID, contact numbers, emails, and official links associated with this RTI request.
📋 RTI Application Identification
This information is essential for your First Appeal or any further correspondence with the Information Commission.
- Registration Number:
DIRMH/R/2024/61586 - Date of Filing: 22/08/2024
- Status: REQUEST REJECTED (as on 19/02/2025)
- Rejection Ground: Others (Remark: Information not provided under Section 7(9))
📞 Key Contact Details
Use these details to follow up or send a physical copy of your appeal if required.
1. Public Information Officer (PIO) – Primary Contact
The officer responsible for the initial rejection.
- Name: CMO Mirzapur (Chief Medical Officer)
- Mobile: 9454455171
- Email: cmomzp@gmail.com
- Office Phone: 05442-252337
- Address: CMO Office, Rambagh, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh – 231001
2. Nodal Officer (Medical & Health Directorate)
The supervisory officer for RTI matters at the state directorate level.
- Name: Director Health
- Mobile: 9415121887
- Email: dgmhsrti@gmail.com
3. First Appellate Authority (FAA)
If you are filing an appeal against the CMO’s decision, it is usually directed to the Additional Director (AD) of the zone.
- Designation: AD (Medical Health & Family Welfare), Mirzapur Division
- Mobile: 8005192626
- Email: admhmzp1@gmail.com
🌐 Official Web Links
For tracking and filing appeals online within the Uttar Pradesh jurisdiction.
- UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.inUse this to “Submit First Appeal” by entering your Registration Number
DIRMH/R/2024/61586. - UP Health Department Official Site: uphealth.up.nic.in
- Mirzapur District Official Utility Page: mirzapur.nic.in/public-utility/district-hospital-2/
- UP State Information Commission: upsic.gov.inFor filing a “Second Appeal” if the First Appeal is also rejected or ignored.
🆘 Helpdesk & Support
- Online RTI Helpline (UP): onlinertihelpline-up@gov.in
- CM Helpline (Uttar Pradesh): Dial 1076 (Use this for lodging a grievance regarding the deliberate denial of health-related information).
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.