When a Public Information Officer invokes Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny information, that is not the end of the road — it is the beginning of an appeal. Section 8 is a closed list of exemptions and even those exemptions carry a public-interest override. The PIO must give a specific, reasoned order explaining which clause applies and why. A vague “information is exempt” reply is itself a violation of the Act. This guide gives you the first-appeal template, the relevant CIC precedents, and the arguments that work.
Direct answer. If the PIO cited Section 8 without identifying which clause, without explaining why that clause applies, or without considering whether a public-interest override applies, file a first appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days of the PIO's order. The burden of proof to justify any exemption is on the public authority, not on you. The First Appellate Authority can override the refusal and direct disclosure.
Section 8(1) of the RTI Act lists specific categories of exempt information — national security, Cabinet deliberations, personal privacy, trade secrets, law enforcement operations, and so on. The provision has two important safeguards that PIOs routinely ignore:
The Central Information Commission has repeatedly held that a “boilerplate” or “copy-paste” exemption order without specific justification is invalid.
Use this appeal letter when:
To,
The First Appellate Authority,
[NAME OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY],
[Full postal address]
Date: [DD/MM/YYYY]
Subject: First appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 against
wrongful refusal by PIO citing Section 8 — Application No. [REF NO.]
dated [DATE].
Sir / Madam,
1. I submitted RTI Application No. [REF] dated [DATE] to the PIO of
[Public Authority] seeking the following information:
[PASTE YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTIONS VERBATIM]
2. By order dated [DATE OF PIO REPLY], the PIO refused to supply the
information citing Section 8([CLAUSE, e.g., 8(1)(j)]) of the RTI
Act, 2005, stating: "[QUOTE THE REJECTION REASON EXACTLY AS WRITTEN]."
3. The refusal is illegal and liable to be set aside on the following
grounds:
(a) The PIO has not identified which specific sub-clause of Section 8(1)
applies and has not explained how disclosure would cause the harm that
the clause is designed to prevent. A speaking order is mandatory:
CIC/VS/A/2013/001802.
(b) Even if the information were otherwise exempt, Section 19(5) of the
RTI Act places the burden of proof on the public authority to justify
the refusal — that burden has not been discharged.
(c) [ADD SPECIFIC GROUND, e.g.: The information I sought relates to
government funds spent under [Scheme Name]. Expenditure of public
money cannot be withheld under S.8(1)(j) as personal privacy;
see CIC/SA/A/2019/121212.]
(d) The public interest in disclosure of [TYPE OF INFORMATION] outweighs
any harm from disclosure, as required by the proviso to Section 8(1).
The PIO has not performed — and has not recorded — the public-interest
balance, as required by the Act.
4. I therefore appeal to this authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act
and request that it:
(a) Set aside the PIO's order dated [DATE] as contrary to law;
(b) Direct the PIO to supply the requested information within 15 days;
(c) Record adverse remarks against the PIO for passing a non-speaking
order in violation of the Act; and
(d) Pass any other order as deemed appropriate.
Enclosed: (i) RTI application dated [DATE], (ii) fee receipt,
(iii) PIO rejection order dated [DATE].
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Postal address]
[Mobile / email]
[Date]
The First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) can:
What the FAA cannot do: impose the Section 20 monetary penalty (only the Information Commission can). If you want penalty, raise it in the second appeal.
Partial refusal. If the PIO supplied some information but refused the rest under S.8, the appeal template works the same way — focus only on the refused portions.
Multiple exemptions cited. Some PIOs cite both S.8(1)(d) and S.8(1)(j) in the same order. Challenge each clause separately in your grounds.
State government PIO. The appeal goes to the state FAA. The same RTI Act provisions apply; the CIC precedents are persuasive (not binding) at state level, but state SIC orders in your state can be cited.
Missed 30-day appeal window. Add a paragraph: “If this appeal is beyond the 30-day period, I respectfully request condonation of delay for the following reason: [medical/travel/postal delay]. The RTI Act does not expressly bar condoning delay, and the FAA has inherent power to do so in the interest of justice.”
Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information whose disclosure “has no relationship to any public activity or interest” and would “cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.” PIOs misuse it by attaching it to any information that names a person — including government servants' salary, appointment orders, and disciplinary proceedings. The CIC has consistently held that actions of a public servant in their official capacity are not “personal information.”
The FAA should give you a reasonable opportunity to be heard before deciding. An order without any notice or hearing can be challenged in a second appeal or a writ. In practice, many FAAs decide on papers without calling the applicant — this is common but not ideal. If the decision is adverse, second appeal is your remedy.
That is even weaker than an S.8 refusal. It is a non-speaking order with no statutory basis. Use the same appeal template and add: “The PIO has not cited any provision of the RTI Act, 2005 that authorises the withholding of the requested information. The refusal is without jurisdiction and must be set aside.”
30 days from the date of receipt of the appeal, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing.