How a First Appellate Authority Writes a Speaking Order Under the RTI

• What it is — A reasoned order under Section 19 disposing of the First Appeal.
• Who writes it — The officer one rank senior to the PIO, designated under §19(1).
• Timeline — 30 days from filing; extendable to 45 days with written reasons.
• Six elements — facts, issues, statutory basis, analysis, order with operative direction, appeal rights.
• Standard — must survive writ review in the High Court; summary one-line affirmations are routinely set aside.

An applicant files Form 6 / Form A appeal. The PIO's reply on the record is two lines: “The information sought is exempt under Section 8. Rejected.” You, the FAA, now have 30 days to dispose of the appeal — sometimes extended to 45 with reasons.

You must:

1. Decide whether the PIO's reasoning is legally sustainable.
2. Consider public-interest override under Section 8(2).
3. Consider severability under Section 10.
4. Evaluate third-party procedure under Section 11.
5. Evaluate timeliness under Sections 7(1), 7(2), and 7(5).
6. Record reasons — not a rubber-stamp, not a one-liner.
7. Preserve the applicant's further appeal rights under Section 19(3).

The speaking order you write at this stage is what the Central or State Information Commission will read at Second Appeal. Its quality determines whether the appellant persists or is satisfied, and whether the PIO faces Section 20 penalty.

Any person aggrieved by the PIO's decision (or deemed refusal) may appeal to the FAA within 30 days of the PIO's decision or of the 30-day reply window expiring. The FAA may admit a delayed appeal if sufficient cause is shown.

The burden of proof that denial was justified rests with the PIO. The FAA's role is to examine whether this burden has been discharged.

The appeal must be decided within 30 days of receipt of appeal, or, for reasons recorded in writing, within 45 days. Silence beyond this is itself appealable.

The FAA (and later the Commission) may:

1. Require the public authority to take any steps necessary to secure compliance with the Act — including provision of access in a particular form.
2. Require the public authority to compensate the complainant for loss suffered.
3. Impose any penalties permissible under the Act (Commission only).
4. Reject the appeal.

Where the record sought should have been proactively published under Section 4(1)(b), the FAA should note this in the order and, if appropriate, direct publication.

Under Section 19(4), if the appeal concerns information relating to a third party, the FAA must give the third party a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

• Reasoned order. A speaking order explains why each contention is accepted or rejected. It is not a précis of the application.
• Burden on the PIO. If the PIO has not justified the denial on the record, the FAA must allow disclosure — in whole, in part, or on remand.
• Balancing, not reflex. Every Section 8 exemption claim must be balanced against Section 8(2) public interest.
• Severability obligation. Section 10 is not optional. Where partial disclosure is possible, the FAA must direct it.
• Timeliness matters. Deemed refusal under Section 7(2) is a finding the FAA must make when silence is established.

Every order must contain:

1. Appeal identification. Appeal number, date of filing, appellant's name, public authority, PIO's reference number, date of PIO's reply (or date of deemed refusal).
2. Grounds taken by the appellant. Recapitulated in the appellant's own language, numbered.
3. PIO's defence. The PIO's reply on record + any written submission. Section 8 / 9 / 11 / 24 clauses invoked.
4. Appellate analysis. Element-by-element examination. Has the PIO identified the sub-clause? Applied Section 8(2)? Applied Section 10? Issued Section 11 notice? Met the 30-day deadline?
5. Decision. Clear operative text. Affirm / modify / set aside / remand. Timeline for compliance.
6. Further appeal rights. The appellant's right of Second Appeal under Section 19(3) — addressed to the Central / State Information Commission — with the 90-day window.

Ask these 15 questions of the PIO's reply. Any “no” is a finding in the appellant's favour.

1. Did the PIO correctly identify whether the information is held by the public authority? (Section 2(f))
2. If not held, did the PIO transfer under Section 6(3) within 5 days? If rejected instead of transferred, this is procedurally wrong.

1. Did the PIO invoke a specific sub-clause (not just “Section 8”)?
2. Did the PIO explain how the exemption applies to the particular record?
3. Did the PIO cite any relevant case law?

1. Did the PIO examine whether Section 8(2) public-interest override applies?
2. Did the PIO apply Section 10 severability, or explain why it is not possible?

1. Did the PIO issue Section 11 notice where the record is treated as confidential by a third party?
2. Did the PIO reply within 30 days (or 48 hours for life/liberty, or 40 days where Section 11 notice issued)?
3. If reply exceeded 30 days, has deemed refusal under Section 7(2) taken effect?

1. Did the PIO charge the correct statutory fee (Rs. 10 application + Rs. 2/page copies)?
2. Did the PIO supply information in the form requested, or explain under Section 7(9) why an alternative form is proposed?

1. Did the PIO communicate the First Appellate Authority's name and address?
2. Did the PIO provide reasons in writing, as Section 7(8)(i) requires?
3. Did the PIO attach the documents referenced in the reply?

Use when the PIO's reply is legally sustainable — sub-clause correctly invoked, Section 8(2) balancing done, severability considered, Section 11 procedure followed.

Use when the PIO's reply is substantially correct but one question or part was wrongly denied, or one question was correctly denied but timing was wrong (order fee refund for delay, etc.).

Use when the PIO's denial is not legally sustainable and the FAA can decide disclosure on the record. Often paired with a direction to provide the information within 15 days.

Use when a procedural step was skipped (Section 11 notice not issued; severability not examined; third-party not heard) and the FAA would ordinarily need that step before deciding disclosure. Remand with time-bound directions.

Use when the appeal is out of time without sufficient cause, or the appeal attacks ground not raised before the PIO, or is simply misdirected (not a public authority under Section 2(h)).

Office of the First Appellate Authority, [Public Authority]

Appeal No. FA/[Year]/[Sr. No.]

In the matter of First Appeal dated DD-MM-YYYY filed by Shri/Smt [Appellant] against reply dated DD-MM-YYYY of the Public Information Officer (Ref: [PIO reply reference]).

---

**1. Facts.**
The Appellant filed RTI application dated DD-MM-YYYY seeking [brief description]. The PIO replied on DD-MM-YYYY denying the request, relying on Section 8(1)([sub-clause]) of the RTI Act, 2005.

**2. Grounds of Appeal.**
The Appellant contends that (i) the information is not personal, (ii) public interest warrants disclosure, and (iii) severability was not considered.

**3. PIO's position.**
The PIO, in submission dated DD-MM-YYYY, has pointed out that the record relates to the service record of Shri X, a third party, and is protected under Section 8(1)(j). The PIO has recorded Section 8(2) balancing on the file and found no public interest overriding the exemption. Section 10 severability has been examined.

**4. Analysis.**
(a) The sub-clause invoked by the PIO is Section 8(1)(j); the record has been correctly identified as personal information of a third party. The Supreme Court in //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212// has held that service records and APAR grading fall within Section 8(1)(j).
(b) The Appellant has not put forward any specific public-interest ground under Section 8(2). The PIO's balancing on the file is on record; no infirmity is noted.
(c) The Appellant's severability argument is examined. The record is wholly personal in nature; no non-exempt element can be reasonably severed.
(d) Timeliness is not in dispute. Fee is not in dispute.

**5. Decision.**
In exercise of Section 19(8)(a)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, this Office **affirms** the PIO's decision dated DD-MM-YYYY. The appeal is **dismissed**.

**6. Further Appeal.**
The Appellant is informed of the right of Second Appeal to the [Central / State] Information Commission under Section 19(3), within 90 days of receipt of this order. The Commission's address is: [address].

Dated: DD-MM-YYYY                                  [Signature]
Place: [Place]                                     [Name, Designation]
                                                   First Appellate Authority

**Analysis.**
The PIO's reply correctly exempts Part A under Section 8(1)(j). However, Parts B and C are not personal information and do not attract the exemption. The PIO has not considered severability under Section 10.

**Decision.**
In exercise of Section 19(8)(a)(i):
(i) The PIO's decision is **modified**.
(ii) The PIO is directed to disclose Parts B and C of the record to the Appellant within **15 working days** of receipt of this order.
(iii) The denial of Part A is **affirmed**.

Fee for additional pages is payable at Rs. 2 per page.

**Analysis.**
The PIO has invoked Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) without (a) identifying the trade secret, (b) examining whether the tender has been awarded (post-award disclosure), or (c) considering public interest under Section 8(2). The Supreme Court in //Jayantilal Mistry// has warned against mechanical invocation of commercial-confidence exemptions by regulators; similar reasoning applies to the present procurement file where the tender is awarded and the L1-selection justification is sought.

**Decision.**
In exercise of Section 19(8)(a)(i) and (iii):
(i) The PIO's reply dated DD-MM-YYYY is **set aside**.
(ii) The PIO is directed to provide the following documents to the Appellant within **15 working days**: [list].
(iii) No fee is chargeable beyond Rs. 2 per page, as provided in the RTI (Regulation of Fee) Rules, 2012.
(iv) A copy of this order is marked to the Head of the Office for record and compliance.

**Analysis.**
The PIO has declined disclosure without issuing notice to the third party under Section 11(1), notwithstanding that the record is one treated as confidential by the third party. This is a procedural lapse that this Office cannot cure at the appellate stage without depriving the third party of its statutory right to be heard.

**Decision.**
In exercise of Section 19(8)(a):
(i) The PIO's reply is **set aside**.
(ii) The matter is **remanded** to the PIO with the following directions:
    (a) Issue Section 11 notice to the third party within 5 days.
    (b) Consider objections received within 10 days.
    (c) Decide the application afresh within 40 days of the original RTI, by a speaking order addressing Section 8(1)([sub-clause]), Section 8(2), and Section 10.
(iii) Time between the filing of this appeal and the date of this order shall not count against the PIO for deemed-refusal purposes.

**Analysis.**
The RTI application was filed on DD-MM-YYYY. As on the date of filing of this appeal (DD-MM-YYYY), no reply had been issued by the PIO, and no extension had been sought or intimated. Under Section 7(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, failure to reply within the prescribed period is treated as **deemed refusal**. The PIO has therefore not discharged the burden under Section 19(5).

**Decision.**
In exercise of Section 19(8)(a):
(i) The PIO's deemed refusal is **set aside**.
(ii) The PIO is directed to supply the information sought within **10 working days** of receipt of this order.
(iii) No fee for additional pages is payable by the Appellant, given the delay beyond Section 7(3). See Section 7(6).
(iv) A copy of this order is forwarded to the Central / State Information Commission for information under Section 20 (penalty consideration).

• Recruitment / exam appeal. Apply Aditya Bandopadhyay. If applicant is the examinee, disclose; if third-party candidate, consider Section 8(1)(j).
• Service-record appeal. Apply Deshpande. Balance under Section 8(2). Sever PAN/Aadhaar.
• Banking / regulator appeal. Apply Jayantilal Mistry. Fiduciary is narrow. Inspection reports disclosable.
• Investigation appeal. Apply Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008). Section 8(1)(h) yields to the corruption / HR proviso of Section 24.
• Policy / file-noting appeal. Apply R.K. Jain. Post-decisional notings disclosable; pre-decisional exempt.
• Contract / tender appeal. Commercial confidence applies during live tender; post-award, BoQs and comparative statements are disclosable.

• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008) — Section 8(1)(h) requires specific impedance, not a blanket claim.
• Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013) — Commissioner qualifications; underscores quasi-judicial nature of appellate authority.
• R.K. Jain v. UoI (2013) 14 SCC 1 — file notings are “information”.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 — answer sheets; applicant's own record.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 — service records under 8(1)(j).
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 — narrow fiduciary reading.
• CPIO, SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 — proportional balance for public offices.

• Rubber-stamp orders. “Appeal dismissed. PIO's reply upheld.” — not a speaking order.
• Oral hearings without record. Every hearing should produce a minute and feed into the written order.
• Ignoring Section 4. If the record should have been proactively published, say so.
• No Section 8(2) balancing in the order. Where the PIO has invoked any 8(1) clause with an override, the FAA must engage.
• Missing the 30-day disposal deadline. Section 19(6) timelines are statutory, not advisory.
• Forgetting to communicate Second Appeal rights. Section 19(3) rights must be flagged in the order.

• Structure first, prose second. A 15-paragraph order with clear sub-headings (Facts, Grounds, PIO Position, Analysis, Decision, Further Appeal) beats a 3-paragraph narrative.
• Cite briefly. Full case name + citation + one-line ratio. Over-citation is not persuasive.
• Use remand where procedure was skipped. Allowing disclosure without third-party hearing may itself be appealed.
• Read the PIO's file, not just the reply. The balancing note under Section 8(2) should be on file even if not in the reply to the applicant.
• Calendar the 30-day deadline. Section 19(6) is often missed because appeals are tracked alongside ordinary administrative files.

Q1. Can the FAA overturn the PIO's decision?
Yes. Under Section 19(8)(a), the FAA can direct disclosure, compel access in a particular form, and require compensation. Penalty lies only with the Commission.

Q2. What is the public-interest test the FAA should apply?
The same six-factor test that binds the PIO: public-activity relationship, impropriety exposure, harm-prevention, applicant's civic role, domain overlap, and necessity vs relevance. See our Section 8(1)(j) framework.

Q3. Can the FAA hold an oral hearing?
Yes. There is no bar. In practice, most appeals are decided on record; oral hearings are granted when facts are contested.

Q4. Must the FAA issue notice to the third party?
Yes, under Section 19(4), where the appeal involves information relating to a third party. A reasonable opportunity must be given.

Q5. What if the FAA misses the 30-day disposal deadline?
The applicant's Second Appeal right under Section 19(3) accrues nonetheless. The FAA's delay may also be considered in Section 20 penalty proceedings against the PIO, since the delay compounds the underlying deemed refusal.

Q6. Can the FAA order penalty under Section 20?
No. Penalty is the Commission's power. But the FAA may record findings that invite the Commission's action.

A good FAA speaking order sits between the PIO and the Commission. It gives the appellant a reasoned outcome. It gives the PIO a record of what was wrong (or right). It gives the Commission a clean foundation to work from at Second Appeal.

Six elements. Fifteen checklist questions. Five templates. And the citation discipline that keeps the appellate craft honest.

An FAA order that cites a statutory provision alone is weak; cite a named ruling:

• §8(1)(g) whistleblower protection — identity of a source protectible
• Bihar PSC v. Rizwi (SC 2012) — interviewer identity vs. candidate marks
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — §8(1)(h) requires specific prejudice, not blanket bar
• §19(3) delay condonation — equitable discretion of the Commission
• Natural justice in IC hearings — both parties must be heard

→ Search all 160+ curated rulings by section, court or keyword.

• Timelines & procedure: §19(1) deadlines · §19(8) powers deep-dive.
• Review checklist: Appellate review checklist.
• Balance test: Privacy vs public interest balancing.
• PIO perspective: How PIOs should evaluate RTIs.
• Case-law anchors: Landmark RTI rulings — 310+.

• PIO RTI reply guide — the 7-step framework
• Section 8(1)(j) framework for PIOs
• PIO recruitment / exam RTI playbook
• Guidelines for FAAs
• Guidelines for PIOs
• PIO & FAA knowledge base — all 25 articles
• 10 landmark CIC decisions
• First Appeal — citizen view
• Second Appeal — citizen view

• Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended 2019)
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008)
• R.K. Jain v. UoI, (2013) 14 SCC 1
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212
• RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525
• CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481
• Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013)
• DoPT Master Circular on RTI — dopt.gov.in

Last reviewed: 24 April 2026. Templates conform to Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 and DoPT Office Memoranda on appellate procedure. Readers are advised to verify citations against primary sources before formal use.