M4, Drafting the Reply, Format, Severability, Section 10

Module 4 of 10. Reading time about 40 minutes. End-of-module quiz unlocks Module 5.

A reply that survives an appeal is reasoned, item-wise, statute-anchored, and severability-respecting. This module gives you the template. It is the template that the RTI Wiki PIO Reply Checker will validate your drafts against.

A casual PIO reply that says “exempted under section 8(1)” without working through severability is the single most common reason a section 20 penalty is imposed. The CIC has held in repeated orders that a reasoned order is a statutory duty, not a courtesy. Drafting is not bureaucratic prose, it is a quasi-judicial act.

For a deeper analysis of penalties under section 20, see section 20 penalty provisions and the companion article on penalty computation and case law. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a PIO who fails to give reasons for rejection acts contrary to the statutory mandate — see the ten SC rulings every PIO must know.

A reasoned PIO reply is one that does not merely state a conclusion but demonstrates the reasoning chain that led to it. Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005 requires the PIO to communicate the decision on the request for information. Sections 7(8) and 10(2) make it clear that the communication must contain reasons, findings, and the statutory basis.

The minimum elements of a reasoned reply are:

1. An item-wise response to each query in the application.
2. A statutory citation for every disclosure, exemption, or severance.
3. A one-sentence factual basis for every exemption claim.
4. A public interest finding under section 8(2) wherever a section 8 exemption is invoked.
5. The name and designation of the decision-maker.
6. The FAA contact details and the right to appeal under section 19(1).

The CIC has repeatedly set aside replies that ticked the exemption clause but omitted the reasoning. For guidance on what the CIC looks for in a reply, see how to write speaking replies and the comprehensive PIO reply guide.

Severability under section 10 is the engine of a defensible reply. It means that if part of a document is exempt, the non-exempt remainder must still be disclosed. The PIO cannot reject the entire document just because one paragraph falls under a section 8 exemption.

Section 10(1), “Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.”

Section 10(2), “Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing, (a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided, (b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based, © the name and designation of the person giving the decision, (d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit, and (e) his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 and the time limit, process and any other form of access.”

For a standalone deep dive on this provision, see section 10 severability — a complete guide for PIOs.

Severability is not optional. If even a single line of a document can be safely disclosed, that line must be disclosed. The PIO must:

1. Identify the exempt portion with a clause of section 8 or 9 or 24.
2. Identify the non-exempt portion that can be reasonably severed.
3. Make a clean copy in which the exempt portion is redacted (blanked or hatched) without revealing what was redacted.
4. Mention each redaction with a foot-note that gives the section invoked and the one-line reason.
5. Supply the redacted document to the applicant.

Item 4 of the application, “Please provide a copy of the file noting on the tender award for Project Alpha, including the rates quoted by all bidders.”

Reply, “Partially disclosed. The successful bidder's rate and the comparative statement are enclosed. The rates of unsuccessful bidders that they have marked confidential under the bid-submission protocol have been redacted at sheet 3 and sheet 5, paragraphs 4 and 7. The redaction is under section 8(1)(d) read with section 11. The successful bidder's identity, the contract value, and the file noting on award are disclosed. Public interest under section 8(2) has been considered. The successful bid is disclosed to enable public scrutiny. The unsuccessful bidders' confidential rates are redacted because their disclosure would harm the competitive position of those bidders without a commensurate public interest.”

This reply will survive a first appeal. A bare “exempted under section 8(1)(d)” will not.

For more on the commercial-confidence exemption invoked here, see section 8(1)(d) commercial confidence and the third-party notice procedure under section 11.

1. Use a black box or solid hatched rectangle. Do not use a thin line through the text, that can be undone.
2. For digital PDFs, use the redaction tool with permanent flatten, not just a black layer.
3. Number each redaction so that the foot-note can refer to it.
4. Foot-note format, “Redaction at para X, page Y, under section 8(1)(Z), reason in one line.”

Every reply must begin with a header that identifies the document as a reply under the RTI Act 2005. The standard header has the following fields.

1. Name of the public authority on letterhead.
2. Reference, inward serial number and date of receipt.
3. Reply number and date of dispatch.
4. To, name and address of applicant.
5. Subject, RTI application dated DD-MM-YYYY, reply under section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

A short paragraph that sets the context.

“With reference to your application under the Right to Information Act 2005 received on DD-MM-YYYY and registered at inward number XYZ, the information held by this public authority and disclosable under the Act is provided below. Items not held by this authority or exempted under the Act are dealt with separately with reasons.”

This is the body of the reply. For each numbered query in the application, provide an item-wise response. Do not use generic language. The pattern for each item is:

Item N, restate the query in one line.

Reply, the substantive reply.

Statutory basis, if disclosed, “Disclosable as held by this authority under section 2(f) read with section 7(1).” If exempted, “Exempted under section 8(1)(X) for the following reasons.” If severed, “Partially disclosed under section 10 for the following reasons. The redacted portion falls under section 8(1)(X) for the following reasons.”

Public interest finding (only where section 8 invoked), “The public interest override under section 8(2) has been considered. The harm to the protected interest outweighs / is outweighed by the larger public interest in disclosure because…”

A schedule of pages enclosed, page count, fee charged per page, total fee, mode of receipt of fee.

The First Appellate Authority contact must be in the reply. The standard paragraph is:

“If you are aggrieved by this reply or the information provided, you may prefer a first appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 within thirty days from receipt of this reply to the First Appellate Authority, Shri/Smt. [Designation], [Public Authority], [Address], [E-mail], [Telephone].”

For FAA lookup, see the FAA knowledge base and how to file a first appeal under section 19.

PIO name, designation, office address, telephone, e-mail, official seal.

Severability is not unique to the RTI Act. Several Indian statutes contain severability clauses that allow partial disclosure or partial enforcement of a record or law. The table below compares the key features.

Key takeaway: The RTI Act's severability clause is one of the most explicitly drafted in Indian law. It creates a positive duty on the PIO — not merely a permission — to disclose the non-exempt portion. For more on how DPDP interacts with RTI, see the DPDP Act's impact on RTI section 8(1)(j).

The CIC's annual reports and published orders reveal a recurring pattern of errors in PIO replies. Avoiding these mistakes is the difference between a reply that survives an appeal and one that triggers a section 20 penalty.

1. Bare clause citation without facts: Writing “exempted under section 8(1)(j)” without stating what personal information is at stake or why its disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
2. Omitting the section 8(2) public interest finding: The Act requires that whenever a section 8(1) exemption is invoked, the PIO must consider whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. Skipping this is a standalone ground for penalty.
3. Failure to apply severability: Rejecting the entire document when only a portion is exempt. The CIC has repeatedly held that the non-exempt portion must be disclosed under section 10.
4. No third-party notice under section 11: When the information relates to or was supplied by a third party and the PIO proposes to disclose it, a written notice to that third party is mandatory. See section 11 third-party procedure.
5. Missing FAA details: Omitting the name, designation, or contact details of the First Appellate Authority. This is a procedural defect that the FAA and CIC treat seriously.
6. Deemed refusal by silence: Not replying within 30 days is deemed refusal under section 7(2), giving the applicant the right to file a first appeal immediately. See deemed refusal under section 7(2).

For a broader analysis of how CIC and High Courts handle evasive replies, see how the CIC responds to evasive PIO replies and why mere pendency is not a valid denial ground.

For every section 8 invocation, your reply must contain a short paragraph with this structure.

1. Statement of the clause being invoked.
2. The factual content of the record that triggers the clause.
3. The legal test from the relevant case law.
4. The application of the test to the facts.
5. The section 8(2) public interest balancing.
6. The conclusion.

A two-line paragraph that ticks each box is enough. A bare citation is not.

For clause-by-clause analysis, see section 8 of the RTI Act and the PIO-focused guides: section 8(1)(j) framework, section 8(1)(d), section 8(1)(e), and section 8(1)(h).

For Central Government, the rate under the RTI Rules 2012 (notified by the DoPT) is two rupees per page in A4 or A3 size. For larger sheets, the actual cost as per office rates. For samples and models, the actual cost or price. State Governments have similar slabs — see state-wise RTI fee comparison for the full list.

The DoPT's RTI Rules 2012 are available at the official portal dopt.gov.in (RTI Rules 2012) and the central RTI gateway rti.gov.in.

Under section 7(5), where the information is to be provided in printed form, the fee is two rupees per A4 page. Where the information is in the form of inspection, the first hour is free, and each subsequent hour or part thereof is charged at the rate prescribed (commonly five rupees per hour). The applicant has a right to inspect under section 2(j). Use this when the volume is large.

The Supreme Court has clarified the fee-intimation requirement under section 7(3) — see the 2021 ruling on section 7(3) fee intimation. The alternative form-of-access provisions are detailed in section 7(9) — alternative forms of access. The national portal india.gov.in also provides a citizen-facing RTI gateway.

The reply must enumerate the fee, “Photocopy charges, 28 A4 pages at two rupees per page, total fifty-six rupees. Postal charges, included in office overheads. Total fee already deposited, fifty-six rupees vide IPO number XYZ dated DD-MM-YYYY.” This itemisation is what saves you in a fee dispute before the FAA.

For the fee waiver for BPL applicants, see the BPL fee waiver guide and the official form at dopt.gov.in.

For multi-file requests, your reply can include an inspection invitation paragraph.

“In view of the volume of records requested, you are invited to inspect the relevant files at this office on any working day between 10 am and 5 pm. Please intimate three working days in advance to enable file retrieval. The first hour of inspection is free. Each subsequent hour is charged at the rate of five rupees. After inspection, you may identify the pages required, and copies of those pages will be supplied at two rupees per A4 page within five working days.”

This paragraph is best practice. It also reduces your photocopy workload.

“Item N. The information sought is not held by this public authority within the meaning of section 2(j) read with section 6(3). The information is held by the [name of authority] at [address]. A copy of your application is being transferred to that authority under section 6(3) and you are advised that the transferred application will be replied to by that authority within thirty days of its receipt.”

The Supreme Court has clarified the transfer rule — see section 6(3) transfer rules (2022 SC ruling). The statutory provision for citizen applications is at section 6 of the RTI Act.

“Item N. The information sought is not held by this public authority and is not held by any other public authority within the meaning of section 2(h). The information appears to be in the private domain. The Act does not apply to such information. You are at liberty to approach the relevant private body through any other lawful means.”

For the definition of “public authority” and when private bodies fall within RTI, see RTI against private bodies via regulator under section 2(f).

“Item N. The request is not specific enough for this public authority to identify the records to be supplied. You are requested to specify the records, the period, and the subject matter in greater detail. As a PIO, reasonable assistance under section 5(3) is offered. You may contact the undersigned to refine the request.”

Note, this paragraph is to be used sparingly. The CIC has frowned upon over-use of vagueness as a delaying tactic.

“Item N. The information sought requires the creation of a new analysis or compilation that does not exist in the records of this public authority. The Act under section 2(j) gives access to information that is held in records. As a PIO, this office is not required to create new information. The records that are held and are relevant are enclosed as Annexure A.”

“With reference to your application received at 11 am on DD-MM-YYYY, the matter has been treated as a life-and-liberty request under the proviso to section 7(1). The reply is dispatched within forty-eight hours. The information sought is…”

For the format and grounds for a life-and-liberty RTI, see urgent RTI — life and liberty format and the life-or-liberty provision analysis.

A reasoned order is your strongest defence. The CIC has set aside replies that lacked reasoning even where the underlying exemption was correctly invoked. Conversely, the CIC has upheld replies that invoked an exemption with a reasoned analysis, even where it might have preferred a different conclusion.

The minimum reasoning per exemption is one sentence that connects facts to the clause and one sentence on section 8(2). Half a page is rarely needed. Two sentences are.

For CIC decisions where reasoning was decisive, see how to cite case law in a PIO reply and the section 20 penalty benchmark.

The following is a minimal but defensible reply template. Adapt the bracketed fields to your file.

“[Letterhead of Public Authority]

Reference, [Inward Number] dated DD-MM-YYYY Reply Number, [PIO/RTI/YYYY-YY/NNN] dated DD-MM-YYYY

To, [Applicant Name] [Applicant Address]

Subject, RTI Application dated DD-MM-YYYY, Reply under section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

Sir / Madam,

With reference to your application under the Right to Information Act 2005 received on DD-MM-YYYY at this office, the information held by this public authority and disclosable is provided below. Items not held or exempted are dealt with separately with reasons.

Item 1, [Restate query]. Reply, [Substantive reply]. Statutory basis, [Section invoked]. [Severability note if any]. [Public interest finding if any].

Item 2, …

Enclosures, [List of annexures and page counts].

Fee, [Itemised fee summary].

If you are aggrieved by this reply, you may prefer a first appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 within thirty days from receipt of this reply to:

First Appellate Authority, [Designation], [Public Authority], [Address], [E-mail], [Telephone].

Yours faithfully,

[PIO Name and Designation] Central / State Public Information Officer [Public Authority] [Telephone, E-mail] [Office Seal]”

Before you sign and dispatch, run this five-point check.

1. Have I replied item-wise to every numbered query?
2. For every section 8 invocation, have I given the clause, the facts, the test, the application, the section 8(2) finding, and a conclusion?
3. For every redaction, have I applied severability under section 10 and explained?
4. Have I named the FAA with designation, address, and contact?
5. Have I attached every enclosure listed and itemised the fee?

If all five answer yes, dispatch. If any answer no, fix before sign.

You can also use the RTI Wiki PIO Reply Checker tool to validate your draft against this checklist automatically.

The RTI Act has seen amendments and administrative changes that affect how PIOs draft replies. Key developments:

1. DPDP Act 2023 implementation (2025): The Digital Personal Data Protection Act creates a parallel framework for personal data. While it does not amend the RTI Act directly, it has influenced how PIOs approach section 8(1)(j). See the analysis of DPDP's impact on section 8(1)(j) and how to draft RTI applications that survive DPDP challenges.
2. DoPT circulars on timelines: The DoPT has issued circulars reminding public authorities of the 30-day deadline and the consequences of deemed refusal. See the DoPT portal at dopt.gov.in (RTI Act and Rules).
3. CIC backlog and penalty trends: The CIC continues to impose penalties for unreasoned replies. The penalty benchmark is Rs 250 per day of delay, capped at Rs 25,000. See section 20 penalty analysis and the CIC website for the latest orders.
4. Fee rationalisation debate: There has been ongoing discussion about rationalising RTI fees across states. See the fee rationalisation debate and the PIB notification at pib.gov.in.

For the full amendment timeline, see what changed in the RTI Act — 2025-2026 amendments.

“Item N. The information sought is not held by this public authority within the meaning of section 2(j) read with section 6(3). The information is held by the [name of authority] at [address]. A copy of your application is being transferred to that authority under section 6(3) and you are advised that the transferred application will be replied to by that authority within thirty days of its receipt.”

“Item N. The information sought is not held by this public authority and is not held by any other public authority within the meaning of section 2(h). The information appears to be in the private domain. The Act does not apply to such information. You are at liberty to approach the relevant private body through any other lawful means.”

“Item N. The request is not specific enough for this public authority to identify the records to be supplied. You are requested to specify the records, the period, and the subject matter in greater detail. As a PIO, reasonable assistance under section 5(3) is offered. You may contact the undersigned to refine the request.”

Note, this paragraph is to be used sparingly. The CIC has frowned upon over-use of vagueness as a delaying tactic.

“Item N. The information sought requires the creation of a new analysis or compilation that does not exist in the records of this public authority. The Act under section 2(j) gives access to information that is held in records. As a PIO, this office is not required to create new information. The records that are held and are relevant are enclosed as Annexure A.”

“With reference to your application received at 11 am on DD-MM-YYYY, the matter has been treated as a life-and-liberty request under the proviso to section 7(1). The reply is dispatched within forty-eight hours. The information sought is…”

Before you sign and dispatch, run this five-point check.

1. Have I replied item-wise to every numbered query?
2. For every section 8 invocation, have I given the clause, the facts, the test, the application, the section 8(2) finding, and a conclusion?
3. For every redaction, have I applied severability under section 10 and explained?
4. Have I named the FAA with designation, address, and contact?
5. Have I attached every enclosure listed and itemised the fee?

If all five answer yes, dispatch. If any answer no, fix before sign.

Severability under section 10 means that when a record contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the PIO must sever (separate) the exempt portion and disclose the remainder. The PIO cannot reject the entire record just because part of it is exempt. The redacted portion must be identified with a clause of section 8 or 9, and a reason must be given for each redaction. For the full legal framework, see the section 10 severability guide.

If the PIO does not reply within 30 days of receiving the application, it is treated as “deemed refusal” under section 7(2). The applicant can then file a first appeal under section 19(1) without waiting for a reply. The PIO may face a penalty of Rs 250 per day under section 20, up to Rs 25,000. See deemed refusal under section 7(2) and section 20 penalty guide.

No. The CIC has repeatedly held that rejecting an entire file because one part contains commercially confidential information violates section 10. The PIO must sever the exempt portion (e.g., the confidential commercial terms of an unsuccessful bidder) and disclose the rest (e.g., the successful bid, the award decision, and the comparative chart). See section 8(1)(d) guide and how to handle partial disclosure.

Under the RTI Rules 2012, the rate for Central Government public authorities is Rs 2 per A4 or A3 page. For larger sheets, the actual cost price. For samples or models, the actual cost or price. State Governments prescribe their own rates, typically ranging from Rs 2 to Rs 5 per page — see the state-wise RTI fee comparison. BPL applicants are exempt from the fee, per the DoPT guidelines at dopt.gov.in.

The DPDP Act 2023 does not amend the RTI Act, but it has created a broader awareness of personal data protection that influences how PIOs and appellants argue section 8(1)(j) cases. The RTI Act's section 8(1)(j) exemption remains the controlling provision for personal information in government records. See the DPDP impact analysis and how to handle section 8(1)(j) after DPDP.

A first appeal under section 19(1) is filed with the First Appellate Authority (a senior officer in the same public authority) within 30 days of the PIO's reply or deemed refusal. A second appeal under section 19(3) is filed with the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission within 90 days of the first appellate order. See the strategy comparison and how to file a first appeal.

Not as a blanket refusal. Section 7(9) allows the PIO to advise the applicant on alternative form of access (e.g., inspection instead of photocopies) where the volume is disproportionately large, but it is not a ground for outright rejection. The PIO should offer inspection and then provide copies of the specific pages the applicant selects. See section 7(9) alternative form of access.

No. The RTI Act under section 2(j) gives the right to information “held” by a public authority. The PIO is not required to create new information, compile data that does not exist, or answer questions that require analysis. However, the PIO must provide what is held and assist the applicant in refining the request under section 5(3).

Under section 20(1), the CIC can impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day on the PIO, up to a maximum of Rs 25,000, for failure to give a reasoned reply. The CIC may also recommend disciplinary action. Repeated or egregious failures can lead to a recommendation for departmental proceedings. See section 20 penalty guide and penalty computation.

When a record contains information supplied by a third party in confidence, and the PIO proposes to disclose it (after severing the exempt portion), the PIO must give written notice to the third party under section 11(1) before disclosure. The third party has 10 days to respond. This is separate from the section 10 severability analysis but often runs in parallel. See section 11 third-party notice and the third-party notice procedure.

The RTI Act 2005 bare act is published on the official portal rti.gov.in. The RTI Rules 2012 (fee, form of access, etc.) are on the DoPT website at dopt.gov.in. The CIC website at cic.gov.in hosts all published orders. For PIB notifications on RTI, search pib.gov.in.

This module gave you the reply template, the severability framework, the redaction conventions, and the reasoned-order structure. In Module 5 we go deep into the exemptions themselves, section 8, section 9, and section 24, clause by clause. Continue to Module 5 — Exemptions Deep Dive. If you missed receiving the application and managing the 30-day clock, review Module 3.

For a citizen-side primer, see How to read a PIO reply on RTI Wiki. For PIO templates, see PIO Reply Checker. For the full course curriculum, visit the CPD curriculum and certification details.

Related RTI Wiki articles:

1. Module 1 — RTI Act working knowledge
2. Module 2 — Case law developments
3. Module 6 — Understanding the application from a PIO's POV
4. Module 7 — Drafting exercises (AI-evaluated)
5. Module 8 — First appeal defence
6. Module 9 — Second appeal defence
7. Section 22 — Overriding effect of the RTI Act
8. Section 24 — Exempt organisations
9. How to file an RTI in India
10. Section 18 complaint to the CIC

This module is part of the RTI Wiki PIO Certification Course. The course is a Learner Certificate programme. It is NOT accredited by any government or statutory body. The drafting exercises in Module 7 are evaluated by a Large Language Model trained on RTI Wiki content, not by human evaluators. Scores are indicative knowledge measures, not legal advice. For the official RTI Act text, rules, and government notifications, always refer to rti.gov.in, dopt.gov.in, cic.gov.in, and pib.gov.in.

Now take the M4 quiz to proceed to M5.