Table of Contents

Section 10 — Severability — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026

Section 10 — Severability

In one line: Section 10 prevents the common PIO move of refusing a whole record because part of it is exempt. If any part can be severed, it must be disclosed. Section 10(1) requires a reasoned decision stating what is severed and why. Section 10(2) requires that the reasons be given to the applicant.

Full text

Why it matters

Without Section 10, PIOs would refuse entire tender files because one signature was “personal”. With Section 10, the entire file must be disclosed with names redacted where privacy genuinely attracts Section 8(1)(j). It is the anti-blanket-refusal clause.

Landmark rulings

Common non-severance patterns

Refusal pattern Why it fails Section 10
“The whole file contains personal information” Generic claim. Section 10 requires identification of each exempt portion.
“Commercial confidence — cannot be partially disclosed” Contract numbers, dates, amounts are severable; only genuinely confidential terms exempt.
“Would require too much editing” Effort is not a Section 10 exemption; Section 7(9) change-of-form applies.
“File is one integrated document” Every document is severable at some level. The PIO must attempt.

Drafting the severance clause

Always include in your RTI:

If any portion of the above information is exempt under
Section 8 or Section 9, kindly apply Section 10(1) and
disclose the non-exempt portion with reasons stated under
Section 10(2) for each severance.

And in your first appeal if the PIO refuses wholesale:

The PIO's refusal violates Section 10(1), which requires
disclosure of non-exempt portions with reasons for severance.
A bare claim of exemption over the whole record, without
identifying the specific exempt portions and attempting
severance, is a non-speaking order appealable on that
ground alone.

Sources

  1. RTI Act, 2005, Section 10.
  2. CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
  3. Bhagat Singh v. CIC, Delhi HC (2007).
  4. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212.

Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026