Researching and Drafting a Public Interest Petition

A pattern is worth more than an incident. One school without a toilet is a complaint to the corporation. Forty-one schools for eight months is a systemic failure, and it is what makes the matter substantial public interest under direction 5.

Stage 3: get the documents, using the Right to Information Act

This is the tool the topic is really about, because it is the only lawful way an outsider gets a public authority's own file.

Section 6(1). A person who desires to obtain any information shall make a request in writing or through electronic means, in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area, with the prescribed fee, to the Central or State Public Information Officer of the concerned public authority, or to the Assistant Public Information Officer, specifying the particulars of the information sought. Where the request cannot be made in writing, the Public Information Officer shall render all reasonable assistance to reduce an oral request to writing.

Section 6(2), the provision that matters most here. An applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information, or any personal details except those necessary for contacting him. So a researcher need not disclose that a petition is contemplated, and an authority may not demand to know.

Section 6(3). If the information is held by another public authority, or is more closely connected with its functions, the authority shall transfer the application and inform the applicant, as soon as practicable and in no case later than five days.

Section 7(1). The Public Information Officer shall, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within thirty days, either provide the information on payment of the prescribed fee or reject the request for a reason in sections 8 or 9. Proviso: where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, within forty-eight hours.

Section 7(2). Failure to decide within that period is a deemed refusal, which is what makes the appeal available even when the authority simply says nothing.

Section 19(1). An appeal lies within thirty days to an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer in the same public authority, with power to condone delay for sufficient cause.

Four practical rules for drafting the application itself:

Ask for documents, not for opinions. "Provide a copy of the cleaning contract for municipal schools in X ward, valid during 2025-26, and of any renewal or extension order" will be answered. "Why are the toilets dirty?" will not: it asks for a reason, not information.

One subject per application. A single application spanning four departments invites transfers and delay.

Give a date range and a document description. Vague applications are refused as not specifying particulars under section 6(1).

Note the life or liberty proviso. Where the subject really does concern life or liberty, say so and cite the proviso, because the timeline changes from thirty days to forty-eight hours.

Stage 4: find the duty that has been breached

A petition needs a legal peg. Grievance alone is not one. Look, in this order:

1. A fundamental right. Article 21 is the usual one, and it is the route into Article 32.
2. A statutory duty. The Act that requires the authority to do the thing it has not done. This is stronger than a general right, because it identifies precisely who must do what.
3. Rules, regulations, schemes and guidelines made under that Act.
4. A direction of a court already binding on the respondent. If one exists, the case may be contempt rather than a fresh petition, which is faster and stronger.
5. A constitutional obligation outside Part III, such as a Directive Principle, which does not found a right by itself but shapes the reading of Article 21.

Then match the duty to the forum. If the peg is a fundamental right, either Article 32 or Article 226. If it is only a statutory duty with no fundamental right engaged, Article 226 alone, because that Article extends to "any other purpose" and Article 32 does not.

Stage 5: check the petitioner, and check for parallel proceedings

The petitioner. Chaufal direction 3 requires credentials to be verified, and Ashok Kumar Pandey shows what happens when they fail. Establish and be ready to state: who the petitioner is, what work he does in the field, that he has no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive, and that he is not a third party stranger raising what only the affected person may raise, which was fatal in Ashok Kumar Pandey. Political affiliation is not automatically disqualifying, but it is exactly the "oblique consideration" S.P. Gupta warned of, and it must be disclosed rather than concealed.

Parallel proceedings. Search for an existing petition on the same subject in the same High Court, in other High Courts and in the Supreme Court. If one exists, the options are intervention, an application in the pending matter, or a transfer, and filing afresh is usually the worst of them. This is a search problem, and chapter 750 is about how to do it.

What goes into the petition

The form differs between the Supreme Court Rules and each High Court's rules, and since Chaufal direction 2 every High Court has been required to frame rules for public interest litigation, so check the rules of the court you are filing in. What follows is the substance those rules require.

1. Cause title. The court, the jurisdiction invoked, the parties. Respondents are the authorities under a duty, joined through the appropriate government department, and the State or Union as the case may be.

2. The petitioner's credentials and bona fides. Who he is, what he does, why he is bringing it, and an express statement that he has no personal interest in the outcome. Since Chaufal this is not a formality; the court is directed to verify it.

3. Facts, in chronological order, each fact tied to an annexure. A fact with no document behind it should be identified as such rather than blended with the rest.

4. The legal duty breached, with the Article, section, rule or scheme named.

5. Grounds, each a separate numbered proposition of law with its authority.

6. Prayers, specific and capable of being obeyed. "Direct the respondents to act in accordance with law" gives a court nothing to enforce. "Direct respondent 2 to restore the cleaning contract for the 41 schools listed in Annexure P-4 within eight weeks and to file a compliance affidavit" can be enforced, and its breach is contempt.

7. Interim relief, if the harm continues while the case is heard, with reasons why waiting causes irreparable injury.

8. Annexures, indexed and paginated, each referred to by number in the body.

9. Affidavit verifying the contents, distinguishing what is true to the petitioner's knowledge from what is true to his information and belief. A verification that swears to everything as personal knowledge, when the petitioner was never at the place, is false on its face and is the quickest way for a petition to fail direction 4.

10. Statement that no similar petition is pending, or full particulars of any that is.

The court's own fact-finding

Research does not end at filing, and this is a distinctive feature of the jurisdiction. Bandhua Mukti Morcha, chapter 730, upheld the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the conditions in the stone quarries, over the objection that reports based on statements untested by cross-examination had no evidentiary value.

That has two consequences for the researcher:

The petition need not prove everything. It must establish enough for the court to be prima facie satisfied under direction 4. If it does, the court has machinery to find the rest.

But the court will not investigate a case the petitioner has not begun. A petition with nothing but newspaper cuttings gives the court no basis on which to appoint anybody.

A worked example, carried through

Return to the neonatal unit from chapter 730: a district hospital's oxygen supply has been non-functional for four months, and sanctioned posts of paediatricians are unfilled.

Stage 1. "Since 12 April 2026 the neonatal intensive care unit at the District Hospital, Y, has operated without a functioning central oxygen supply, and 6 of 9 sanctioned paediatrician posts are vacant, the State Health Department having neither repaired the plant nor filled the posts."

Stage 2. What would prove that: the hospital's own equipment register and maintenance records; the sanction order creating the nine posts and the current staffing statement; correspondence between the hospital and the department; the department's budget head for equipment maintenance and its utilisation; affidavits from parents and from a paediatrician; the district health society's minutes.

Stage 3. Four separate applications under section 6(1), one per subject, each asking for named documents over a stated period, each addressed to the Public Information Officer of the right authority: the hospital, the district health office, the department, and the district health society. No reasons given, because section 6(2) says none may be required. Where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, the forty-eight hour proviso to section 7(1) is invoked expressly. If thirty days pass with no answer, section 7(2) makes it a deemed refusal and section 19(1) gives an appeal within thirty days.

Stage 4. The duty. Article 21 as read to include health care, which opens Article 32 as well as Article 226; the State's own staffing sanction, which is a specific and undisputed obligation; and any State public health rules or scheme prescribing equipment standards for a district hospital. Naming the sanction order is worth more than naming Article 21, because the respondent cannot argue about the existence of its own order.

Stage 5. The petitioner is a journalist with published work on district health services and no interest in the outcome; that is stated on affidavit. A search shows a pending petition in the same High Court on oxygen supply across the State: so the right course is an intervention application in that matter, not a fresh petition, and the research done is what makes the intervention useful.

The prayers. Repair or replacement of the plant within a stated period; filling of the sanctioned posts within a stated period; a compliance affidavit; interim direction to make alternative oxygen arrangements pending repair. Each is specific, and each can be tested against a date.

What beginners get wrong

Filing on press reports. They locate a case; they do not make one.

Giving reasons in the RTI application. Section 6(2) says none may be required, and volunteering that litigation is planned invites obstruction.

Asking questions instead of asking for documents. The Act gives access to information held by an authority, not to explanations.

Prayers that cannot be obeyed. "Do the needful" is unenforceable and its breach is uncontemptible.

Verifying everything as personal knowledge. The petitioner was not there. Say what is on information and belief.

Not searching for parallel proceedings. The court will find out, and it looks worse coming from the other side.

Concealing an affiliation. Ashok Kumar Pandey: the petition is thrown out when public interest turns out to be a camouflage. Disclosure is survivable; concealment discovered is not.

Quick revision

• Five stages: state the wrong in one sentence; establish the facts; obtain documents under the RTI Act; find the duty breached; check the petitioner and check for parallel proceedings.
• Chaufal directions 3, 4 and 5 are why: credentials verified, correctness of contents, substantial public interest.
• RTI s.6(1): written or electronic request in English, Hindi or the official language of the area, with fee, to the PIO or APIO, specifying particulars; oral requests to be reduced to writing with the PIO's assistance.
• s.6(2): no reason need be given, and no personal details beyond those needed to contact the applicant.
• s.6(3): transfer to the right authority within five days.
• s.7(1): decide within thirty days; forty-eight hours where life or liberty is concerned. s.7(2): silence is a deemed refusal. s.19(1): appeal within thirty days to an officer senior to the PIO.
• Duty first, then forum: fundamental right means Article 32 or 226; statutory duty alone means Article 226 only.
• Petition contents: cause title, credentials and bona fides, dated facts tied to annexures, the duty, grounds, specific prayers, interim relief, indexed annexures, an honest verification, and a statement on pending proceedings.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha: the court may appoint commissioners, so the petition need not prove everything, but it must give the court something to act on.

Test yourself

1. Why is establishing facts the hardest part of a public interest petition? Because the petitioner has no personal knowledge of them. He was not present and has no documents of his own, while the people who do know cannot come to court. The facts must therefore be built from the public authority's own records, statutory returns, reports of constitutional bodies and affidavits of those affected, which is why the Right to Information Act is the central research tool for this jurisdiction.

2. What does section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act provide, and why does it matter to a researcher? That an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information, nor any personal details except those necessary to contact him. It matters because a researcher preparing a petition need not disclose that fact to the authority whose conduct is being examined, and the authority may not demand it as a condition of answering.

3. What happens if a Public Information Officer does not answer within thirty days? Section 7(2) deems the request refused. The applicant may then appeal under section 19(1) within thirty days to an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer within the same public authority, and that officer may condone delay for sufficient cause. Where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person the period under section 7(1) is forty-eight hours, not thirty days.

4. How does the duty you identify determine the court you file in? If a fundamental right is engaged, the petition may go either to the Supreme Court under Article 32 or to a High Court under Article 226. If the breach is only of a statutory duty with no fundamental right involved, Article 32 is not available, because it extends only to Part III rights, and the petition must go to a High Court under Article 226, which extends to any other purpose as well.

5. Why must prayers be specific? Because a court can only direct what can be performed and later tested. A prayer to act in accordance with law gives the respondent nothing to do and the court nothing to enforce, so its breach cannot be contempt. A prayer naming the act, the respondent, the time limit and a compliance affidavit produces an order that can be obeyed, checked and enforced.