RTI and the Indian Armed Forces: What Soldiers and Families Can Access

There is a particular quality of frustration that many veterans and their families describe when they try to navigate the defence bureaucracy. A pension that hasn't been revised correctly despite OROP notifications. An ECHS reimbursement claim sitting unacknowledged for months. A disability pension category that was assessed years ago and appears, on a close reading of the rules, to be wrong. A son who applied for an Army recruitment rally and was told he failed the medical board, with no further explanation given.

These are not matters of national security. They are administrative decisions — the kind that affect livelihoods, health, and dignity. And yet, because the words "armed forces" and "defence" are involved, many citizens assume that the Right to Information Act, 2005 either doesn't apply at all or that asking questions is futile.

That assumption needs to be examined carefully. The legal position is more nuanced — and considerably more favourable to veterans and families — than most people realise.

Section 24 and the Second Schedule: What It Actually Says

Section 24 of the RTI Act is the provision that creates a special category of organisations exempt from the Act's coverage. Unlike Section 8, which exempts categories of information subject to a balancing exercise, Section 24 applies at the threshold level: certain organisations are simply outside the Act's reach.

The organisations covered by Section 24 are those listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act. This is a closed, enumerated list. The intelligence and security bodies named in the Second Schedule include the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), the Aviation Research Centre (ARC), the Special Frontier Force, the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Special Protection Group (SPG), and others.

The paramilitary forces — Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) — also appear in the Second Schedule, but only in respect of their intelligence functions. Their administrative functions are not covered by the Section 24 exemption.

Two critical points follow from this.

First, the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force are not named in the Second Schedule. Service headquarters — Army HQ, Naval HQ, Air HQ — are not on the list of exempt organisations. This does not mean all military information is freely available. It means the Section 24 framework does not apply to them, and the ordinary RTI Act framework does — including the information-by-information balancing exercise under Section 8.

Second, the Ministry of Defence is a regular public authority under the RTI Act. It is not exempt. It must process RTI applications, respond within 30 days under Section 7(1), designate CPIOs, and participate in the appeal structure. Second appeals against Ministry of Defence decisions go to the Central Information Commission (CIC) under Section 19(3).

DRDO, by contrast, is on the Second Schedule. The starting presumption for DRDO is non-disclosure. But even for DRDO, the proviso to Section 24(1) applies: information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations within the organisation shall not be excluded under Section 24 — a hard, mandatory limit that Parliament embedded into the exemption.

The Ministry of Defence: A Full Public Authority

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is the nodal civilian ministry overseeing India's three services, the Defence Accounts Department, and a range of attached offices and subordinate agencies. It is one of the largest ministries in the Government of India and administers an enormous range of functions: procurement policy, pension policy, ex-servicemen welfare schemes, ECHS administration, CSD canteen policy, and more.

For RTI purposes, MoD is an entirely ordinary public authority. There is no exemption, no Second Schedule listing, no special threshold that shields it from the RTI Act. You apply under Section 6, pay the ₹10 fee prescribed under the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, and the CPIO has 30 days to respond under Section 7(1). BPL cardholders are exempt from the fee.

The practical consequence of this for veterans and their families is significant. Many of the questions that matter most — OROP implementation for your rank and service category, ECHS empanelment policy, Kendriya Sainik Board scheme eligibility criteria, CSD canteen entitlement rules — are questions that can and should be directed to the Ministry of Defence through a straightforward RTI application.

Where the MoD delegates administration to its attached offices — PCDA (Pensions), CGDA, the Directorate of Ex-Servicemen's Welfare — each of those offices is also a public authority with its own CPIO and must be approached on the matters within its functional jurisdiction.

What Veterans and Families Can Access Through RTI

The categories of information that veterans, serving personnel, and their families can legitimately access through RTI are broader than most people assume. The following are the most significant.

Pension Records and Calculations

The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), commonly called PCDA(P), Allahabad, is the nodal office for calculating and authorising defence service pensions across all three services. PCDA(P) is a Central Government public authority under the Ministry of Defence. Its CPIO must respond to RTI applications within 30 days.

Service pensions, disability pensions, family pensions, liberal family pensions, and war injury pensions are all calculated and authorised through this office (or the appropriate equivalent in the Controller of Defence Accounts system for some cases). The records that veterans and families can request include:

• Copies of the pension sanction order (PPO — Pension Payment Order) issued at the time of retirement
• The qualifying service calculation, including the basis on which reckonable service was determined
• The pay elements considered for the purpose of calculating last drawn pay or average emoluments
• Whether the pension has been revised under the applicable Pay Commission recommendations, and if so, the revision order
• Whether the OROP (One Rank One Pension) revision has been applied, the applicable OROP table for the specific rank and service group, and any arrears calculation

All of these are administrative documents. There is no national security issue in a veteran asking for their own pension calculation order.

OROP (One Rank One Pension) Records

One Rank One Pension was a long-standing demand of the defence fraternity, finally implemented by notification in 2015 and subsequently revised. OROP implementation has been the subject of considerable dispute about whether it was implemented in full letter and spirit. The relevant policy documents, circulars, and implementation orders from the Ministry of Defence and PCDA(P) are accessible through RTI.

A veteran who believes their pension has not been correctly revised under OROP can file an RTI with PCDA(P) asking for the specific OROP table applicable to their rank, service, and group, the date from which the revision was applied, and the calculation used. If the calculation appears incorrect, the documentation obtained through RTI forms the factual basis for a formal representation or, if necessary, a legal challenge.

ECHS (Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme) Records

ECHS is administered by the Ministry of Defence and provides cashless healthcare to retired defence personnel and their dependants through a network of polyclinics and empanelled hospitals. ECHS questions are among the most frequent sources of veteran grievances, and RTI is directly applicable.

Veterans can request through RTI: the current list of hospitals empanelled under ECHS in a given city or district; the specific Ministry of Defence circulars governing reimbursement eligibility for particular treatments; copies of rejection orders for reimbursement claims along with the rule or circular relied upon; the current eligibility criteria for ECHS coverage of dependant family members; and whether a particular polyclinic or ECHS station is correctly recording the applicant's details.

The relevant CPIO is typically at the ECHS Directorate under the Ministry of Defence, or at the relevant Zonal ECHS Centre for location-specific operational queries.

Canteen Store Department (CSD) and Canteen Entitlements

The Canteen Stores Department (CSD) operates a network of canteens providing subsidised goods to serving and retired defence personnel. Entitlement slips, eligibility criteria for different categories of ex-servicemen, annual revisions to entitlement quantities, and the criteria governing the issuance or cancellation of smart cards are all administrative matters that fall within the RTI Act's reach.

An ex-serviceman whose CSD entitlement card was cancelled or not renewed can file an RTI asking for the specific reason and the order under which the cancellation was effected. These are not intelligence matters. CSD is a commercial undertaking of the Ministry of Defence, and its administrative decisions are fully RTI-accessible.

Recruitment Records for JCOs and Other Ranks

Recruitment to the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force is conducted through various processes — Army Recruiting Offices, Service Selection Boards, written examinations, and medical boards. A candidate who was rejected and received no reasons can attempt to obtain information through RTI.

Service headquarters (Army HQ, Naval HQ, Air HQ) are public authorities and are not exempt under Section 24. An RTI asking for the criteria applied in the medical board assessment, the applicable standards for the relevant recruitment batch, or the marks/grade obtained in the written examination is an entirely legitimate request.

This is an area where it is worth being clear about the practical limits: service headquarters have, in a number of cases, declined to share individual-level assessment records on the basis of Section 8(1)(j) — the provision that protects personal information about third parties (though importantly, Section 8(1)(j) contains an explicit proviso that information about an individual that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen). They have also sometimes cited Section 8(1)(a) for recruitment records involving security-related roles.

The recommended approach is: file the RTI with the relevant recruiting authority, be specific about what information you are seeking (your own assessment record, not a third party's), cite the Section 8(1)(j) proviso that an individual's own information is accessible, and if refused, pursue the appeal path rather than assuming the refusal is final.

An Individual's Own Service Record — Section 8(1)(j) Proviso

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act generally exempts information that relates to personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or has no relationship to the discharge of a public function, and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

However, the section contains a critical proviso: information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to a citizen. The practical implication is that an individual seeking their own service records — their own service number, rank, posting records, assessment reports, medical board proceedings, disciplinary history — can invoke this proviso. The information is about them; there is no third-party privacy at stake.

A veteran seeking their own Release Medical Board proceedings, disability assessment details, or service record entries that form the basis of an administrative decision should explicitly note in their RTI application that they are seeking their own personal information under the Section 8(1)(j) proviso.

Sainik Welfare Scheme Records

The Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB) is a body under the Ministry of Defence that oversees the welfare of ex-servicemen and their dependants. The Zila Sainik Boards (ZSBs), which function at the district level across India, implement these welfare measures at the ground level — registering ex-servicemen, processing welfare applications, maintaining records for employment, education, and financial assistance schemes.

KSB and ZSBs are public authorities under the RTI Act. A veteran who applied for a KSB scholarship, financial assistance, or employment assistance and received no response or an adverse decision can file an RTI with the relevant ZSB or KSB asking for the status of the application, the criteria applied, and the reason for any rejection. These are administrative records, and there is no basis in law for refusing them.

The Armed Forces Flag Day Fund, administered by KSB, supports a range of welfare schemes. RTI applications seeking policy documents, scheme eligibility criteria, and aggregate beneficiary statistics are straightforward and appropriate.

What Is Exempt: Section 8(1)(a) and Operational Information

While administrative and pension matters are broadly accessible, there is a substantial body of defence-related information that is legitimately exempt from disclosure. The primary statutory basis for these exemptions is Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect:

• The sovereignty and integrity of India
• The security of the State
• Strategic interests of the State
• Scientific interests of the State
• Relations with a foreign State
• Lead to incitement of an offence

For the armed forces, the categories that clearly fall within this exemption include:

Operational deployments and movements: The specific location, strength, or deployment pattern of military units — particularly in border areas, active theatre areas, or areas of counter-insurgency operations — is information whose disclosure could cause genuine harm to national security. Section 8(1)(a) applies directly. An RTI seeking the current positions of forward posts or the composition of a specific operational formation is not a request that the RTI Act requires to be answered.

Intelligence assessments and threat evaluations: Military intelligence assessments — enemy order of battle, threat assessments, intelligence inputs about cross-border activity — are squarely within the Section 8(1)(a) exemption. These are not merely sensitive; their disclosure could directly prejudice operational planning and personnel safety.

Weapons systems specifications and capabilities: Classified technical specifications of weapons platforms, equipment capabilities, electronic warfare systems, and similar matters fall within the strategic and security interests exemption. DRDO's research outputs on advanced weapons systems are separately protected by virtue of DRDO's Second Schedule listing.

Personnel in sensitive roles: The identity and deployment details of personnel in intelligence functions, special forces, or other sensitive operational roles fall within Section 8(1)(a). The RTI Act does not require the army to disclose the identity or location of its special forces personnel.

Counter-terrorism operational planning: Ongoing counter-terrorism operations, their planning parameters, and operational communications fall within the exemption.

It is important to note that these exemptions apply to specific categories of information — they are not blanket exemptions that swallow the entire armed forces establishment. The existence of an exemption for operational deployment information does not mean that a veteran's pension calculation is protected because it happens to relate to a person who served in the armed forces.

Service Headquarters: A Nuanced Position

The status of service headquarters — Army Headquarters (Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Army)), Naval Headquarters, and Air HQ — under the RTI Act is more complex in practice than the straightforward legal position suggests.

Service headquarters are not listed in the Second Schedule. Section 24 does not apply to them. They are public authorities, and they have CPIOs and an appellate structure. That much is clear as a matter of law.

However, in practice, service headquarters have taken a range of positions on RTI applications. On administrative matters — posting orders, promotion criteria, pay and allowances, welfare policies, canteen entitlement rules — service headquarters have generally responded to RTI applications, though quality and completeness of responses varies. On operational matters, they routinely invoke Section 8(1)(a). On individual personnel records — particularly promotion board proceedings, assessment reports (ACRs/APARs), and disciplinary inquiries — the responses have been inconsistent, with some matters addressed and others refused citing Section 8(1)(j) or Section 8(1)(g) (endangering the life of a person).

The recommended approach for any RTI involving service headquarters is: file the application, be specific and targeted in your questions, and if the response is a refusal or is inadequate, pursue the First Appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days and, if necessary, the Second Appeal to the CIC under Section 19(3). The CIC has jurisdiction and has issued a number of decisions setting aside overly broad refusals by defence establishment CPIOs.

Do not assume that a refusal from a service headquarters CPIO is the final word. The appeal path is real, the CIC has authority, and an unjustified refusal can result in penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act — ₹250 per day, up to ₹25,000, imposed personally on the CPIO.

The more productive strategy for administrative and pension matters is often to direct the RTI to the Ministry of Defence or to PCDA(P) rather than to service headquarters. The Ministry of Defence and PCDA(P) are the civilian institutions that process, authorise, and record the administrative decisions that most veterans want to understand. Going directly to these offices — rather than to service HQ — often yields more complete responses on administrative matters.

AFVRSB and the Resettlement System

The Armed Forces Veterans Resettlement Scheme Bureau (AFVRSB) and the broader resettlement structure for retiring service personnel — the Directorate General Resettlement (DGR) under the Ministry of Defence — administer employment assistance, training courses, self-employment schemes, and CSD canteen allotments for retiring and retired personnel.

DGR and the Ministry of Defence are public authorities. The scheme criteria, allotment procedures, waiting lists for petrol pump and CNG station allotments, eligibility norms, and processing timelines for various DGR schemes are all administrative matters that are RTI-accessible. A veteran who applied for a DGR scheme and received no communication can use RTI to find out the status of their application, the norms applied, and whether their application was considered.

Using RTI for Pension Discrepancies: A Practical Approach

When a veteran believes their pension has been calculated incorrectly — or that a revision (such as OROP, or a Pay Commission revision) has not been applied — the RTI route provides the factual foundation for any further action.

The recommended sequence is:

Step 1: Obtain your own pension records. File an RTI with PCDA(P) Allahabad (or the relevant defence accounts office) asking for a copy of your PPO, the qualifying service calculation, the pay element basis, and any revision orders issued and applied to your pension. This establishes the official record of what has been done.

Step 2: Obtain the applicable policy documents. File a separate RTI (or include in the same application if the questions are distinct) asking for the specific OROP table applicable to your rank, service category (e.g., JCO, OR, Hav, Nb Sub, Sub, Sub Maj), and group; the effective date of the applicable revision; and the calculation methodology. These are publicly available policy documents, and PCDA(P) or the Ministry of Defence should have them.

Step 3: Compare the two sets of documents. If the pension actually paid differs from what the OROP table or revision order requires, you now have documentary evidence of the discrepancy. This can form the basis for a formal pension revision representation, a complaint to the Kendriya Sainik Board, or if the matter is not resolved, a petition to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) or appropriate court.

RTI is not the end point in a pension dispute — it is the fact-gathering stage that makes everything else more effective.

Sample RTI Questions for Veterans and Families

The following illustrate the kind of questions that are appropriate and specific enough to obtain useful responses.

For pension discrepancy: "Provide a copy of the pension sanction order (PPO) issued in the name of rank name, service number XXX, who retired on date from unit/arm/service. Also provide a copy of any OROP revision order or 7th Central Pay Commission revision order applied to the above PPO, and the revised pension amount as per each revision, effective from their respective dates."

For ECHS reimbursement refusal: "My ECHS reimbursement claim number XXX for treatment received at hospital name on date(s) was rejected. Provide: (a) a copy of the rejection order with stated reasons; (b) the specific Ministry of Defence circular, ECHS regulation, or policy document under which the rejection was made; (c) confirmation of whether hospital name was on the ECHS panel as on date of treatment."

For CSD entitlement card cancellation: "My CSD smart card bearing number XXX, issued to rank name (ex-serviceman, service number XXX), was cancelled / not renewed. Provide a copy of the order or communication by which the card was cancelled, along with the rule or circular under which the cancellation was effected, and the authority who passed the cancellation order."

For recruitment board rejection: "I, name, appeared before the Army/Navy/Air Force recruitment rally / selection process at location on date. My candidature was rejected at the written test / medical board / physical test stage. Provide: (a) the marks or grade obtained at each stage; (b) the qualifying standards applicable for this recruitment batch; and (c) the reason for rejection at the medical board stage, including the specific medical condition cited, if applicable. I seek my own personal information under the Section 8(1)(j) proviso of the RTI Act."

For OROP table verification: "Provide the OROP pension table applicable to Havildar / Junior Commissioned Officer / specific rank in the Infantry / Armoured Corps / specific arm/service, Group X/Y/Z, as notified under the Ministry of Defence's OROP implementation letter dated date, if known. Also provide the effective date of implementation for the above table and whether any subsequent revision of the OROP table has been issued."

For Zila Sainik Board welfare scheme: "An application for scholarship / financial assistance / employment assistance under scheme name was submitted on behalf of name, relation to ex-serviceman at Zila Sainik Board, district name on approximate date. Provide: (a) the current status of the application; (b) the eligibility criteria for the said scheme as currently notified; and (c) if the application was rejected or not processed, the reason therefor."

How and Where to File

For RTI applications directed to the Ministry of Defence or any of its attached offices (including PCDA(P), CGDA, KSB, ECHS Directorate, DGR) — all are Central Government bodies and RTI applications are filed at rtionline.gov.in.

The application fee is ₹10, paid online through the portal. BPL cardholders are exempt from this fee under Section 7(5) of the RTI Act — upload a copy of the BPL card when filing online.

The CPIO has 30 days to respond under Section 7(1). If the information relates to life or liberty, the response period drops to 48 hours under the proviso to Section 7(1) — this is unlikely to apply in most administrative matters but is available where genuinely relevant.

If the response is unsatisfactory or no response is received, a First Appeal under Section 19(1) must be filed within 30 days of the date of the CPIO's decision or the expiry of the 30-day period, whichever is applicable. This goes to the First Appellate Authority — a senior officer within the same public authority.

If the First Appeal is also unsatisfactory, a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) is filed within 90 days with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC can order disclosure, impose penalties of up to ₹25,000 on the CPIO under Section 20, and award compensation. Second appeals to the CIC are free of charge.

For RTI applications to state-level Sainik Welfare Departments or state Rajya Sainik Boards, the applicable portal and second appeal body will be the respective state's RTI portal and State Information Commission.

A Note on Patience and Persistence

Veterans and their families sometimes feel that the armed forces establishment is more resistant to RTI than other government bodies. That perception is not entirely without basis — there are CPIOs in the defence system who are too quick to invoke Section 8(1)(a) for matters that have no conceivable security dimension. But the legal framework is clear, the appeal path is real, and the CIC has repeatedly set aside over-broad refusals in defence-related RTI cases.

The most effective approach is: ask specific questions, seek specific documents, cite the relevant proviso when asking for your own records, and follow the appeal path when a refusal comes. A blanket refusal from a CPIO is not the final answer — it is the beginning of the appeal process, and the appeal process is where the legal framework tends to work in the applicant's favour.

The RTI Act was designed precisely for the situation where the government holds information that directly affects a citizen's livelihood and rights, and where the citizen has no other mechanism to obtain it. A veteran's pension records are exactly that kind of information.

How RTISathi Can Help

Navigating RTI applications for defence matters — knowing whether to file with the Ministry of Defence, PCDA(P), ECHS Directorate, or service headquarters; framing questions that are specific enough to get substantive responses; and handling appeals when refusals come — requires a working knowledge of both the RTI Act and the defence administration structure.

RTISathi.com provides end-to-end RTI filing assistance for veterans, serving personnel, and their families. We identify the correct public authority for your specific query, draft applications that are legally precise and targeted, file through the official portal, and handle First and Second Appeals to the CIC when the initial response falls short.

Visit RTISathi.com or write to [email protected] to get started. The ₹10 fee is yours to pay to the government — RTISathi charges ₹149 + GST per application, payable only after you have seen the draft and are satisfied.