Every RTI reply is only as strong as the file noting that supports it. The First Appellate Authority and Information Commission read the noting before they read the reply. A defensible noting follows a fixed skeleton: dak diary, mapping of queries to documents, exemption analysis with case-law citation, severability and Section 11, costing and timeline, decision and signature. PIOs who skip this skeleton lose appeals routinely; those who follow it survive even contested cases.
Use this guide every time an RTI request is opened. The format below is suitable for central ministries, state secretariats, public sector undertakings, banks, regulators and local bodies. It is consistent with the Manual of Office Procedure (MoP), the DoP&T RTI guidelines and CIC practice.
The CIC has held in Vinod Kumar v MEA (CIC, 2014) and several later orders that a noting that does not record the Section 8 / Section 10 / Section 11 analysis is procedurally defective and may attract Section 20 penalty.
A PIO should follow this nine-step skeleton.
A complete file noting template.
File no. RTI/[Year]/[Section]/[Serial] Office of [Public Authority] Subject: RTI application from [Applicant name] dated [DD/MM/YYYY] PART A, DAK AND FACTS 1. Application received by [post / online / hand] on [DD/MM/YYYY] vide diary no. [number]. 2. Fee: Rs [amount] paid by [IPO / online / DD]; confirmed deposited. 3. Applicant: [name], [address], [email if any]. 4. Number of substantive queries: [number] (numbered Q1 to Q[n]). PART B, QUERY-WISE MAPPING For each query, the dealing assistant has recorded the following. Q1: [Reproduce the query] Documents that respond: [List] Held by: [Section / register / officer] Exempt? [No / Section 8(1)(_) / Section 9 / Partly] Reasons: [Brief reasoning] Decision: [Disclose / Decline / Disclose in part] Q2: [Reproduce the query] Documents: [List] Exempt? [....] Section 11 trigger: [Yes / No]; if yes, third party identified as [name]; notice issued on [date]; representation received on [date]; hearing held on [date]; reasons recorded. Severability under Section 10: [Yes, paragraphs X and Y disclosed; A and B redacted / No]. Decision: [....] [Repeat for each query] PART C, EXEMPTION ANALYSIS 1. For Q[number]: Section 8(1)(j) two-limb test applied; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v CIC (2013) 1 SCC 212 followed. Public-interest override considered and [accepted / rejected] for the reasons recorded. 2. For Q[number]: Section 8(1)(d) commercial confidence; Section 11 followed; severance under Section 10 applied. 3. For Q[number]: Section 9, copyright owned by a non-government party; alternative summary supplied. PART D, TIMELINE 1. Day 0: receipt on [date]. 2. Day 5: Section 11(1) notice issued on [date]. 3. Day 15: representation received on [date]. 4. Day 25: hearing held on [date]. 5. Day 30: reply prepared by [date]; despatched on [date]. PART E, FEE 1. Section 7(3) intimation issued on [date] for Rs [amount] (Rs 2 per A4 page x [number] pages). 2. Payment received on [date]; remaining [pages] dispatched on [date]. PART F, DECISION 1. Information at Q1, Q3, Q5 is disclosed in full. 2. Information at Q2 is disclosed in part with redaction of [reference] under Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 10. 3. Information at Q4 is declined under Section 8(1)(g) for the reasons recorded. 4. Applicant is informed of the right of First Appeal under Section 19(1); third party at Q2 is informed of the right under Section 11(4) read with Section 19(2). [Signature] [PIO Name] [Designation] [Office, Telephone, Email] [Date] PART G, DESPATCH 1. Reply despatched by Speed Post AD on [date], AD no. [number]. 2. Reply also sent by email to [address] on [date], delivery confirmed. 3. File closed; appeal window monitored.
Yes, in most cases. The substantive noting on the RTI request becomes part of the file. The DoP&T has clarified that file notings are not exempt by virtue of being notings.
Yes. The PIO can consult the law cell or the dealing officer's superior, but the decision is the PIO's.
The PIO has authority under Section 5(4) to seek assistance; refusal can be reported.
Either, consistent with the office's working language. Where the applicant has used a different language, the reply at minimum should be in the language of the application.
A summary of each query is enough; the full application is on file.
The PIO is not the appellate authority. The FAA may direct redaction or further disclosure.
The same skeleton applies; record dates, decisions and exemption analysis on the e-noting screen and export a PDF for the file.
Last reviewed: 9 May 2026.