Rule-Making Powers and Procedures Under the RTI Act, 2005

Every law needs a support system to function in the real world. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is no exception. While the Act itself lays down the grand architecture of transparency, the actual nuts and bolts – how much to pay for an application, where to send it, what format to use for an appeal, how the Information Commission should conduct a hearing – are worked out through rules. And the authority to frame these rules is carefully distributed among different bodies under Sections 27, 28, and 29 of the Act. Understanding this rule-making framework is essential for anyone who wants to grasp how RTI really works on the ground.

Why the RTI Act needs a rule-making framework 🔗

A statute passed by Parliament cannot anticipate every administrative detail. Legislators set out the principles and broad contours, but day-to-day operational matters are left to delegated legislation – rules made by the executive under powers granted by the parent Act. This is both practical and constitutionally sound because it allows flexibility without constantly reopening the statute.

The RTI Act applies across the Union, States, and several constitutional bodies with very different working environments. A High Court’s registry, a Panchayat office, and a Central Ministry cannot all be governed by an identical set of procedures. The framers of the Act therefore created a tiered rule-making scheme that respects the division of powers between the three organs of the State and the quasi-federal distribution of power between the Centre and the States.

Interestingly, Sections 27 and 28 – the provisions that confer rule-making power – were among the few sections that came into force immediately on the Act’s enactment, while most other provisions kicked in 120 days later. The logic was straightforward: without rules in place, the substantive rights would have nothing to stand on.

Section 27: Rule-making power of the appropriate Government 🔗

Section 27 empowers the “appropriate Government” – that is, the Central Government for Union public authorities and the State Government for State public authorities – to make rules by notification in the Official Gazette to carry out the provisions of the Act.

What Section 27 covers 🔗

The section lists specific matters on which the appropriate Government may frame rules. These include the cost of materials disseminated under Section 4(4), the application fee under Section 6(1), additional fees under Sections 7(1) and 7(5), the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of officers and employees of the Information Commissions, and the procedure for the Central or State Information Commission in deciding appeals under Section 19(10). A residuary clause also permits rules on “any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.”

This wide ambit is deliberate. It gives the Central and State Governments the flexibility to plug operational gaps without waiting for legislative amendments. At the same time, the rules must remain consistent with the parent Act – they cannot, for instance, create new exemptions or dilute rights that the statute has conferred.

The federal balance 🔗

Because “appropriate Government” is defined in Section 2(a) based on who establishes or finances the public authority, the Centre frames rules for Union public authorities while each State Government frames its own rules for public authorities under its control. This is why the RTI fee in Delhi may be ten rupees while in certain States the fee and formats differ significantly. The federal scheme is reinforced by reading Sections 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) together with Sections 27 and 28, which vest rule-making power in the bodies closest to the public authorities they serve.

Section 28: Rule-making power of competent authorities 🔗

Not every public authority falls neatly under the executive branch. The Supreme Court, the High Courts, Parliament, State Legislatures, and other constitutional bodies are independent of government control. Forcing them to accept rules framed by the Centre or the States would violate the constitutional scheme of separation of powers.

Section 28 addresses this by empowering “competent authorities” – as defined in Section 2(e) – to make rules for their own institutions. The competent authorities include the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or a State Legislative Assembly, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or a Legislative Council, the Chief Justice of India for the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court for the respective High Court, the President or Governor for other constitutional authorities, and the Administrator for Union Territories.

The scope of competent authority rules 🔗

The rules framed under Section 28 are narrower in scope than those under Section 27. They deal mainly with the cost of materials disseminated under Section 4(4), the application fee under Section 6(1), the fee under Section 7(1), and any other matter that may be prescribed. These rules apply only to public authorities working under the control of the concerned competent authority – the Chief Justice of a High Court, for example, cannot make rules binding on a State Secretariat.

When competent authority rules become controversial 🔗

This independence has occasionally produced friction. Several High Courts have notified RTI rules prescribing application fees and photocopy charges far higher than those set by the Central Government, with some charging Rs. 500 as an application fee and Rs. 15 per page against the Centre’s Rs. 10 and Rs. 2 respectively. Critics argue that such fees deter ordinary citizens from seeking information and are inconsistent with the spirit of the Act. The Supreme Court has heard challenges to such rules, and the Department of Personnel and Training has repeatedly urged harmonisation with the Central Rules.

Section 29: Laying of rules before the legislature 🔗

Delegated legislation must be accountable to the body that delegated the power in the first place – Parliament for Central rules and State Legislatures for State rules. Section 29 provides this safeguard.

Rules made by the Central Government or by Central competent authorities must be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as possible after they are notified. Parliament may then modify or annul the rules, though any modification does not affect acts already done under those rules. Rules made by a State Government or State competent authority are laid before the concerned State Legislature.

This legislative oversight is more than a formality. It is indicative of the scheme of parliamentary oversight over the power of delegated legislation, allowing elected representatives to check whether the executive or constitutional bodies have stayed within the boundaries of the parent Act. In practice, however, this scrutiny has often been thin – Committees on Subordinate Legislation rarely examine RTI rules in detail, and many rules framed in violation of the Act’s letter and spirit have remained in force for years.

The evolution from 2005 to 2012 🔗

When the RTI Act first came into force, the Central Government issued two separate sets of rules to get the machinery running.

The initial 2005 rules 🔗

The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 prescribed application fees and the cost of providing information – how much per photocopy, per floppy disk, per hour of inspection, and so on. The Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 laid down the process for filing second appeals before the Central Information Commission, including documents required, hearings, and the conduct of proceedings.

These rules were functional but fragmented. Over the years, the need for a consolidated, updated framework became apparent, particularly as online filing, video-conference hearings, and electronic payment of fees started becoming mainstream.

The Right to Information Rules, 2012 🔗

On 31 July 2012, the Department of Personnel and Training issued a notification under Section 27 superseding both the 2005 fee rules and the 2005 appeal procedure rules. The Right to Information Rules, 2012 consolidated the fee and appeal procedures into a single framework for Central public authorities.

The 2012 Rules retain the application fee of Rs. 10 and set out the cost of supplying information – two rupees per page for A-3 or smaller paper, actual cost for larger paper or samples, fifty rupees per diskette or floppy, and a charge of five rupees for each hour of inspection after the free first hour. Applicants below the poverty line are exempt from fees on production of a valid BPL certificate issued by the appropriate Government.

The rules also detail the appeal procedure before the Central Information Commission – the format of an appeal, accompanying documents, return of defective appeals, the Commission’s power to hear the CPIO, First Appellate Authority, and third parties, and the appellant’s right to be informed of the hearing date at least seven clear days in advance, with the option of appearing in person, through a representative, or via video conferencing where available.

Later refinements 🔗

The Central Government has continued to refine the framework. The 2019 rules, for instance, gave effect to changes in the tenure and service conditions of Information Commissioners following the RTI Amendment Act, 2019. Meanwhile, the RTI Online Portal allows applicants to file applications and first appeals electronically, with payment through internet banking, debit or credit cards, and UPI, though this facility is restricted to Central public authorities.

Why this three-section framework matters for transparency 🔗

The rule-making scheme in Sections 27, 28, and 29 is not a dry administrative detail. It is the reason the RTI Act can adapt to different institutional contexts – a district collector’s office, a High Court registry, and the Prime Minister’s Office – without losing coherence. It is also why harmonisation has been a recurring theme: when States or competent authorities notify rules that impose prohibitive fees or restrictive formats, the practical right of the citizen shrinks even though the statutory right remains intact.

For students of public administration, this framework illustrates a key lesson: rights on paper depend on rules on the ground. The power to frame those rules is itself a form of power that needs checks – the gazette publication requirement under Sections 27 and 28 and the laying requirement under Section 29 together form that check, however imperfectly it may operate in practice.

What do you think? Should Parliament exercise more active scrutiny over RTI rules framed by State Governments and competent authorities to prevent prohibitive fees from undermining the citizen’s right to information? And is it time for a uniform national standard on RTI fees and procedures, or does the current tiered scheme better respect India’s federal character?

References

1. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/blog/rti-amendments-questionable-legislative-competence-dual-control-and-other-legal-quagmires-arising-out-of-a-onenight-stand-with-the-rti-act
2. https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf
3. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2065
4. https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/rti-act-2005/section-27-28-rti-act-2005-power-to-make-rules-by-appropriate-government-power-to-make-rules-by-competent-authority-sec-27-28-of-right-to-information-act-2005.html
5. https://righttoinformation.wiki/explanations/competent-authority
6. https://www.commoncause.in/uploadimage/case/8077390661608748951sc10c.pdf
7. https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/rti-rules-made-appropriate-government-competent-au
8. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/RTIRules_2012_English_0.pdf
9. https://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/rti-orders-in-brief/right-to-information-rules-2012.html
10. https://rtionline.gov.in/faq.php