Justification for Denial is Mandatory — Speaking Order Requirement

• Section 7(8) — if rejecting, the PIO must state (i) reasons, (ii) period within which appeal lies, (iii) particulars of the First Appellate Authority.
• Section 19(5) — onus to prove that a denial was justified lies with the PIO.
• Section 19(8)(b) — Commission can require compliance if the refusal was unreasoned.
• Section 20 — Rs 25,000 penalty if denial was malicious, unreasonable, or persistently delayed.

A speaking order on an RTI denial has five mandatory elements:

1. The specific sub-clause of Section 8 or Section 9 invoked — e.g., “Section 8(1)(j)” not just “Section 8”.
2. Why that sub-clause applies to these facts — e.g., “the record names a private individual whose information, if disclosed, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, as explained in Girish Deshpande”.
3. Whether severance under Section 10 was considered — and if rejected, why.
4. Whether the public-interest override under Section 8(2) was weighed — and the conclusion.
5. Appellate details — name, designation, address, and the 30-day appeal window.

When filing a first appeal under Section 19(1), use this paragraph:

The Public Information Officer's reply dated [X] does not
comply with Section 7(8) of the RTI Act. The reply does not
cite a specific sub-clause of Section 8 or Section 9, does not
apply any provision to the facts of this case, and does not
consider severance under Section 10 or the public interest
override under Section 8(2). Per Section 19(5), the burden of
proving that the denial is justified lies on the PIO, and in
the absence of a speaking order, the denial must be set aside
and the information directed to be disclosed in full.

• Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 — PIO must apply mind to each request individually; blanket refusals are unsustainable.
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2020) 11 SCC 345 — Information Commissions have a supervisory duty to ensure PIOs issue reasoned orders.
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC, Delhi HC (2007) — Section 8(1)(h) requires the PIO to show how disclosure would impede an investigation; bare assertion is not enough.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — the PIO cannot refuse on volume; Section 7(9) permits only change of form.

1. Read the PIO's reply against the five-element checklist above.
2. Identify which elements are missing — sub-clause, application to facts, severance analysis, public interest, appellate details.
3. File a first appeal within 30 days using the template above.
4. Request both remedies in the appeal: (a) set aside the non-speaking order; (b) direct disclosure on merit.
5. If the FAA's order is also non-speaking, file a second appeal under Section 19(3) to the CIC or SIC within 90 days.
6. Prayer for penalty — include Section 20 prayer for wilful refusal if this is the PIO's pattern across multiple cases.

Before filing the first appeal, run the PIO's reply through this 5-question audit:

1. Did they name the sub-clause?
2. Did they apply it to the facts?
3. Did they consider severance?
4. Did they weigh public interest?
5. Did they provide FAA details?

For every “No”, you have an appealable ground. Most denials fail at least two of the five.

Partial disclosure without reasons for the withheld portion violates Section 10(1) which requires that the reasons and findings be recorded. Appealable on both Section 7(8) and Section 10(1) grounds.

Yes — and this is a good strategic move. Request in your RTI: “If any exemption is claimed, kindly cite the specific sub-clause, the reasons applied to these facts, and the case law relied upon.” Raises the cost of a bad refusal.

Section 4(2) encourages suo motu disclosure, but if the link doesn't reach the specific information requested, this is a non-speaking response. Ask for the direct URL or file number.

Audit any RTI refusal you have received against the 5-question checklist above. If it fails any one, use the appeal paragraph above and file under the First Appeal template.

• The RTI Act, 2005
• Grounds for rejection — Section 8 and 9
• Severability — Section 10
• Public interest override — Section 8(2)
• Why RTI applications get rejected
• First Appeal template
• PIO reply after DPDP 2025

1. Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 7(8), 19(5), 19(8)(b), 20.
2. Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1.
3. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2020) 11 SCC 345.
4. Bhagat Singh v. CIC and Ors., Delhi High Court (2007).
5. CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.

Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026