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.

PIO speaking replies — complete guide on when PIOs give oral instead of written responses and what to do:

1. Step 1: What is a speaking reply? (a) a speaking reply — is a reply — that is given — orally — by the PIO — to the applicant — instead of a written reply, (b) the PIO — may call the applicant — on the phone — and provide the information — orally — or may ask the applicant — to come to the office — and provide the information — orally, © the speaking reply — is NOT a valid reply — under the RTI Act — because: (i) Section 7(1) — requires the PIO — to provide the information — in writing — or in the electronic form, (ii) the oral reply — cannot be verified — or appealed — because there is no record, (iii) the oral reply — may be denied — by the PIO — or the applicant — later.
2. Step 2: Why do PIOs give speaking replies? (a) the PIOs — give the speaking replies — for the following reasons: (i) to avoid the written record — which may be used — against the PIO — or the department, (ii) to save the time — and the effort — of writing the reply, (iii) to discourage the applicant — from filing the further RTI — or the appeal, (iv) to hide the information — that is not favourable — to the department, (b) the speaking replies — are common — in the following cases: (i) the salary — and the service records — of the employees, (ii) the tender — and the contract details, (iii) the corruption — and the complaint details, (iv) the property — and the land records.
3. Step 3: What to do when the PIO gives a speaking reply. (a) Step 1 — document the oral reply: (i) note down — the date, the time, the name — and the designation — of the PIO, (ii) note down — the information — provided — orally, (iii) if possible — record the call — or take a witness, (b) Step 2 — demand the written reply: (i) write to the PIO — demanding the written reply — within the 30-day period, (ii) cite Section 7(1) — which requires the written reply, (iii) state that the oral reply — is not a valid reply — under the RTI Act, © Step 3 — file the first appeal: (i) if the PIO — does not provide the written reply — within 30 days — file the first appeal — with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), (ii) cite the oral reply — and the demand — for the written reply, (iii) argue that the oral reply — is a deemed refusal — under Section 7(2), (d) Step 4 — file the second appeal: (i) if the FAA — does not direct the written reply — file the second appeal — with the Information Commission, (ii) the Commission — can direct the PIO — to provide the written reply — and impose a penalty — under Section 20.
4. Step 4: The legal position on speaking replies. (a) the RTI Act — Section 7(1) — requires: (i) the PIO — to provide the information — to the applicant — in writing — or in the electronic form, (ii) the reply — must be in the form — requested by the applicant — (written, electronic, or printout), (b) the Central Information Commission — has consistently held — that: (i) the oral reply — is not a valid reply — under the RTI Act, (ii) the PIO — must provide the written reply — even if the information — was provided orally, (iii) the oral reply — is a deemed refusal — and the applicant — can file the appeal, © the State Information Commissions — have also held — that the oral reply — is not valid — and the PIO — must provide the written reply.
5. Step 5: How to prevent speaking replies. (a) specify the format: in the RTI application — specify: (i) “I request the information — in writing — by the registered post”, (ii) “I do not accept — the oral reply — or the phone call”, (b) specify the delivery: (i) “Please send the reply — to the address — mentioned in the application”, (ii) “I am not available — to collect the reply — in person”, © cite the law: (i) “Under Section 7(1) — the PIO — must provide the information — in writing”, (ii) “The oral reply — is not a valid reply — under the RTI Act”, (d) keep the proof: (i) keep the postal receipt — of the RTI application, (ii) keep the tracking — of the speed post, (iii) keep the screenshots — of the online application.
6. Step 6: Sample first appeal for speaking reply. “To, the First Appellate Authority, [Department]. Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Sir, I filed the RTI application — on [date] — seeking the following information: [details]. The PIO — [name] — called me — on [date] — and provided the information — orally — on the phone. I demanded the written reply — on [date] — but the PIO — has not provided the written reply. I argue that: (i) the oral reply — is not a valid reply — under Section 7(1), (ii) the oral reply — is a deemed refusal — under Section 7(2), (iii) the PIO — has failed — to provide the information — within 30 days. I request the FAA — to direct the PIO — to provide the written reply — and to impose the penalty — under Section 20. Yours faithfully, [Name, Address].”
7. Step 7: Practical tips. (a) always demand the written reply (if the PIO — calls — or asks to come — always demand the written reply — by the post), (b) document the oral reply (note down — the date, the time, the name — and the content — of the oral reply), © file the appeal (if the written reply — is not provided — file the first appeal — and the second appeal), (d) cite the CIC orders (cite the CIC orders — which hold — that the oral reply — is not valid — to pressure the PIO — to provide the written reply), (e) Example: An applicant — sought the tender details — from the department — the PIO called — and provided the details — orally — the applicant demanded the written reply — the PIO did not provide — the applicant filed the first appeal — the FAA directed the PIO — to provide the written reply — within 7 days — and warned the PIO — against the oral replies.

See PIO Speaking Replies and Privacy and RTI.