We conducted a detailed analysis of your RTI journey, focusing especially on budget details spent on RTI portal. We reviewed the responses from the DoPT, DARPG, and NIC. From this, here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the “disappearing” budget details.
1. The “No Separate Budget Head” Loophole (Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal)
The core reason for the denial of information is an accounting technicality. The government does not treat the RTI Online Portal or CPGRAMS as independent financial entities. Instead:
- They are categorized under broader “IT Support Services” or “Establishment Expenses” of the National Informatics Centre (NIC).
- There isn’t a specific “folder” or “bank account” labeled “RTI Portal Maintenance.” Therefore, the CPIOs claim the information is non-existent. They do this instead of calculating it from their total expenses.
2. Structural Fragmentation of Responsibility
Your case highlights a classic bureaucratic “shuffling” of accountability between three main actors:
- DARPG: Manages the policy of grievances but not the servers.
- DoPT: Manages the rules of RTI but not the code.
- NIC: Manages the technology but claims it acts only as a service provider for the other two.This fragmentation allows each department to claim that the “complete” information lies elsewhere, effectively leaving the citizen with no answer.
3. Disconnect in Public Service Delivery
A major point of contention in your appeal was the failure of automated systems. There was a lack of SMS/Email alerts upon disposal of cases.
- The government’s refusal to disclose the budget is linked to this quality issue.
- By not disclosing maintenance costs, the departments avoid accountability. This is why these portals, which receive millions of hits, frequently suffer from technical glitches. They also lack basic notification features.
4. The “Right to Reason” vs. Administrative Silence
The blog post emphasizes an important issue. While the Right to Information Act and administrative law demand a “Right to Reason,” appellate authorities often fail. They provide “mechanical” disposals. An example is the order from Timothy Dkhar.
- The Appellate Authority simply “deemed the reply appropriate.” This decision upholds the status quo of opacity instead of directing the CPIO to find or pro-rata the costs.
5. Failure of the First Appeal Process (Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal)
Your appeal (NICHQ/A/E/25/00093) was disposed of with a digitally signed but brief order. This suggests that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is not acting as an independent check on the CPIO. Instead, it serves as a rubber stamp for the department’s initial refusal.
Summary Table: Where the Information “Hides”
| Department | Role | Reason for Non-Disclosure |
| DoPT | Administrative Control | Claims no “Separate Budget Provision” exists. |
| DARPG | Policy Head (CPGRAMS) | Claims NIC and other organizations are involved. |
| NIC | Technical Maintenance | Claims resources are shared across multiple portals. |
Would you like me to help you draft a formal complaint to the Central Information Commission (CIC)? The complaint would specifically challenge the claim that “no information is available.” Annual reports clearly show IT expenditures.
The Budgetary “Black Box”: Why the Numbers Are Missing (Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal)
The Government of India’s approach to IT expenditures complicates getting a clean figure for the RTI Portal maintenance. This issue is especially evident when trying to examine the budget details spent on RTI Portal functions. Analysing the finer budget details spent on rti portal operations is quite a challenge. This difficulty arises due to the way expenses are reported. The same applies to CPGRAMS (Public Grievance Portal).
1. Integrated Accounting (The “No Separate Head” Problem)
Portals like the RTI online and CPGRAMS are not independent entities with their own bank accounts. The National Informatics Centre (NIC) manages these projects. The DoPT (for RTI) and DARPG (for Public Grievances) provide administrative control.
- Infrastructure: The servers, security, and bandwidth are part of the larger “NIC Cloud” (MeghRaj).
- Manpower: The engineers and scientists working on these portals are NIC employees. Their salaries come from the general NIC payroll. The salaries do not come from a specific “RTI Portal Maintenance” fund.
- The Result: There isn’t a dedicated “Line Item” in the Union Budget for maintaining these two URLs. Therefore, the CPIO claims the information does not exist. This makes it difficult to pinpoint the precise budget details spent on rti portal management.
2. The Multi-Departmental Maze (Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal)
The communication from Under Secretary Kamal Kumar Thakur (dated 02.06.2025) reflects a “pass-the-parcel” approach. The DARPG sets the policy for grievances, but the NIC provides the technical platform. When you ask DARPG for the budget, they point to NIC. When you ask NIC, they may claim the funds are sanctioned under general “IT Support Services” of the Ministry. This creates significant difficulties for a citizen trying to determine the cost of a single portal. It is especially challenging if they are seeking budget details spent on RTI portal technology.
Estimated Budget Context (2021–2025)(Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal)
The specific “maintenance” cost for the portals is hidden within broader categories. However, we can look at the Total Budgetary Allocations for the parent departments. This helps us see the scale of funding involved. Financial records do not usually highlight exact budget details spent on rti portal upkeep, so context is key.
| Financial Year | DoPT Total Budget (Includes RTI Support) | DARPG Total Budget (Includes CPGRAMS) |
| 2021-22 | ~₹250 – ₹300 Crore | ~₹40 – ₹50 Crore |
| 2022-23 | ~₹320 Crore | ~₹60 Crore |
| 2023-24 | ~₹350 Crore | ~₹85 Crore |
| 2024-25 | ~₹370 Crore | ~₹120 Crore (Increased for NextGen CPGRAMS) |
Note: These figures represent the total department budget. The specific portion for “Portal Maintenance” is typically bundled under “Information Technology” or “E-Governance” headings. This complicates any effort to trace budget details spent on the rti portal alone.
The Core Issue: Transparency vs. Technicality
The “Right to Reason” is a cornerstone of administrative law. However, the replies you received (from Dilip Kumar Jha and Timothy Dkhar) rely on Section 7(9) principles. These principles explain that a CPIO is not required to “create” information. They are also not required to “collate” information that isn’t already held in a specific format. In summary, accessing budget details spent on rti portal enhancement involves both legal and technical hurdles.
Why they are “running away”:
- Avoidance of Granular Scrutiny: Providing a specific maintenance cost would allow citizens to ask certain questions. They might wonder why certain features (like email/SMS alerts) fail despite high spending. Examining budget details for RTI portal improvements would help clarify value for money. However, this is only possible if the data were available.
- Administrative Inertia: It is easier for a CPIO to simply say “no separate head exists.” Asking the Accounts Department to calculate the proportional cost of server space takes effort. It also requires calculating business-hours dedicated to these portals.
What You Can Do Next
The First Appellate Authority has already disposed of your appeal by siding with the CPIO. Your next logical step is to file a Second Appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). If your appeal focuses on budget details spent on rti portal sections, wording your request carefully is essential.
Strategic Tip for your Second Appeal:
Instead of asking for “Budget Spent,” ask for:
- Copies of the Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMC) are needed. Service Level Agreements (SLA) signed with third-party vendors are also required. These are for the upkeep of the RTI/CPGRAMS portals. They can offer useful insight into how budget details are spent on rti portal administration.
- “The total amount sanctioned under the ‘E-Governance’ or ‘IT’ head of the DoPT/DARPG for the respective years.”
Key Takeaways
- The government categorizes the RTI Online Portal and CPGRAMS under broader IT support services, creating a loophole for non-disclosure.
- Three departments share responsibility for the portal. DARPG handles policy. DoPT manages rules. NIC oversees technology. This leads to accountability issues.
- Automated systems fail to notify citizens about case disposals, contributing to a lack of transparency and technical glitches.
- The First Appellate Authority often acts as a rubber stamp, failing to provide an independent review of information requests.
- To pursue budget details spent on rti portal, consider filing a Second Appeal. Submit this appeal with the Central Information Commission for more specific requests.
Here are the contact details and web links for the public authorities involved in your request. This information is based on the official RTI communications and government directories.
1. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) (Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal)
Concerned with the RTI Portal and Policy.
- CPIO & Under Secretary: Shri Dilip Kumar Jha
- Phone: 011-23040401 / 011-24010499
- Email: dk.jha@nic.in
- Address: Room No. 310, North Block, New Delhi – 110001
- Appellate Authority: Shri Deo Nath Sah (Director)
- FAA Email: deonath.sah@nic.in
- FAA Phone: 011-23092475
- Official Website: dopt.gov.in
2. Dept. of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances (DARPG)
Concerned with CPGRAMS and the Public Grievance Portal.
- Under Secretary (PG): Shri Kamal Kumar Thakur
- Phone: 011-23360208
- Email: cpgrams-darpg@nic.in (General Helpdesk) / kamalk.thakur@nic.in (Specific to PG Division)
- Address: 5th Floor, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001
- Joint Secretary (Grievances): Ms. Jaya Dubey
- Official Website: darpg.gov.in
3. National Informatics Centre (NIC)
Concerned with technical maintenance and server hosting.
- CPIO (RTI Section): Shri Swarup Dutta (Scientist-F)
- Phone: 011-24305688
- Email: swarup.dutta@gov.in
- First Appellate Authority: Shri Timothy Dkhar (Scientist-G & DDG)
- FAA Email: tdkhar@nic.in
- FAA Phone: 011-24305409
- Address: A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003
- Official Website: nic.in
Relevant Web Links of authorities dealing with Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal currently
- RTI Online Portal: rtionline.gov.in
- Public Grievance Portal (CPGRAMS): pgportal.gov.in
- Central Information Commission (CIC): cic.gov.in (For filing second appeals)
RTI Application IDs for Reference in matter about Budget Details Spent on RTI Portal
- NIC Matter: NICHQ/R/E/25/00295 (Appeal: NICHQ/A/E/25/00093)
- DARPG Matter: DARPG/R/P/25/00049
- DoPT Matter: DOP&T/R/P/25/00827
Would you like me to draft a consolidated email to these officers? I can demand a joint clarification on the “Missing Budget” issue.
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.