PIO speaking replies — how to write a §7(8) order that survives appeal

RTI Act §7(8)(a)–©; §10 (severability); §19(1)–(8). Bhagat Singh v CIC (Delhi HC 2007); RBI v Jayantilal Mistry (SC 2015) on the duty to give reasons.

• Identify the specific record actually sought before deciding exemption.
• Match each request line-by-line to the narrowest available exemption.
• For §8(1)(j) personal information, separately analyse harm + public interest override.
• Apply §10 severability — release the non-exempt portion even if part is exempt.
• Communicate the FAA designation + 30-day appeal window in the same order.
• Sign with name, designation, date, and office stamp; oral / phone responses are not valid orders.

1. Read the request carefully — Identify each numbered question + the specific record sought.
2. Search the record — Locate the file. If unable to locate, say so explicitly with §6(3) reasons.
3. Apply public-interest override (where §8(1)(d), (e), (j) invoked) — Articulate why the harm of disclosure outweighs the larger public interest in transparency.
4. Apply §10 severability — If only part of a record is exempt, redact + release the rest. Blanket denial of mixed records is rarely sustained on appeal.
5. Cite specific clause — Not “exempt under §8”; specify §8(1)(j) and identify what is “personal” + what unwarranted invasion would result.
6. Add transfer note (where §6(3) applies) — If subject is wrong PA, transfer within 5 days and inform applicant.
7. Communicate appeal route — Name + designation of FAA + 30-day window + free.
8. Sign + date + stamp — Office stamp gives the order institutional standing.

To: [Applicant Name]
[Address]

Subject: Reply to your RTI application no. [____] dated [____]

Sir/Madam,

With reference to your application above, the following is the response in respect of each of your queries:

Query 1: [Quote applicant's question 1]
Reply: [Specific reply OR specific exemption with reason]
       Section invoked: [e.g., §8(1)(j) — personal information]
       Reasoning: [Why it is personal + how disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion. Cite Girish Deshpande SC 2013 if applicable.]
       Public-interest analysis: [Why no overriding public interest applies in this case.]

Query 2: [...continue for each query...]

Where part of any record was found exempt, the non-exempt portion has been provided herewith pursuant to §10.

Total fee chargeable: Rs ___ (calculated as: ___)

Appeal: If aggrieved, you may file a first appeal under §19(1) within 30 days from receipt of this order to:
The First Appellate Authority,
[Designation], [Office Address], [Phone], [Email]

The first appeal is free of cost.

Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Designation]
Public Information Officer
[Office Stamp + Date]

Salary structure (grade, allowances) under transparency norms — disclose. Bank account, address — sever under §8(1)(j). Net amount paid — disclose with reasoning.

Pre-charge-sheet portions exempt under §8(1)(h) — but post-charge-sheet portions disclosable per Bhagat Singh + Subhash Chandra Agarwal line.

Pre-award stage exempt under §8(1)(d) — but technical scoring methodology + financial bids opened are disclosable post-award per Reliance v CIC.

Pre-decision deliberations exempt under §8(1)(i). But post-decision file notings + materials disclosable per §8(1)(i) proviso + R.K. Jain line.

• Bhagat Singh v CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — PIO must give specific reasons; conclusory orders set aside.
• RBI v Jayantilal Mistry (SC 2015) — Even claimed fiduciary relationships require detailed analysis with public-interest weighing.
• Subhash Chandra Agarwal line of cases — File notings + post-decision materials are disclosable; the PIO must analyze each portion.
• Girish Deshpande v CIC (SC 2013) — §8(1)(j) is narrow — public-servant work record is not personal.

• Generic citations of “§8” or “§9” without sub-clause invite reversal.
• Refusing without doing severability analysis under §10.
• Oral / phone responses without written order — these are not §7(8) compliant.
• Failing to communicate appeal route + FAA designation.
• Wrong fee calculation — leads to applicant claiming “constructive refusal”.
• Saying “information not available” without searching the record + giving §6(3) reasons.

• Use a checklist: section, sub-clause, specific record portion, public-interest analysis, severability, fee, appeal route.
• Cite the specific case-law where the same exemption was rejected on similar facts — preempts FAA reversal.
• When in doubt, lean toward disclosure; the burden of justification is on you under §8(2).
• Keep a denial register at office level — flag patterns that the FAA might overturn.
• For routine rejections (e.g., privacy of public servants), develop standard text — but tailor it to each specific record.

Apply §22 (overriding effect) and §3 (right to information). When in doubt, disclose. CIC has consistently penalised over-cautious refusals.

No — the Act does not allow PIO to judge motive. The 2008 amendment dropped any such filter. Only §7(9) form-of-access ground is valid.

As long as needed to engage with the specific record. One paragraph per query is typical; complex requests may need a page.

Each gets its own §7(8) order. Cannot combine. But you may invoke §7(9) for the form (inspection vs photocopy) if voluminous.

Helpful but not required. Reasoning + specific record analysis is what matters.

• pio faa knowledge base
• pio rti reply guide
• pio section 7 9 alternative form
• pio deemed refusal section 7 2
• act/section-7

RTI Act §7(8); Bhagat Singh v CIC (Delhi HC 2007); RBI v Jayantilal Mistry (SC 2015); CIC orders catalog at cic.gov.in.

Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.