Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(section 10 rti act, severability rti, rti redaction, partial disclosure rti, section 10 1 rti, section 10 2 rti)
+metatag-description=(Section 10 of the RTI Act — severability. Even when part of a record is exempt under Section 8/9, the non-exempt portion must be disclosed. Full reference with rulings and drafting counters.)}}
+====== Section 10 — Severability ======
+{{ :social:auto:act-section-10.png?direct&1200 |Section 10 — Severability}}
+{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**In one line:** Section 10 prevents the common PIO move of refusing a whole record because part of it is exempt. **If any part can be severed, it must be disclosed**. Section 10(1) requires a reasoned decision stating what is severed and why. Section 10(2) requires that the reasons be given to the applicant.
+</WRAP>
+===== Full text =====
+  * **10(1)** — Where a request for access is rejected, the PIO may give access to that part of the record which does not contain any exempt information and which can reasonably be severed.
+  * **10(2)** — The applicant shall be given a notice stating: (a) only part is disclosed, (b) reasons, (c) name and designation of the person making the decision, (d) fee details, (e) appeal rights.
+===== Why it matters =====
+Without Section 10, PIOs would refuse entire tender files because one signature was "personal". With Section 10, the **entire file must be disclosed** with names redacted where privacy genuinely attracts Section 8(1)(j). It is the **anti-blanket-refusal** clause.
+===== Landmark rulings =====
+  * **//CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497** — implicitly endorsed severance as the default mode when any exemption is claimed.
+  * **//Bhagat Singh v. CIC//, Delhi HC (2007)** — if Section 8(1)(h) investigation exemption is invoked, only investigation-impeding portions can be withheld; rest must be severed.
+  * **//Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212** — personal information should be severed, not used to refuse the whole record.
+  * **CIC in //Subhash Agarwal v. Ministry of Finance//** — severance analysis must appear in the PIO's speaking order, not as an afterthought.
+===== Common non-severance patterns =====
+^ Refusal pattern                                         ^ Why it fails Section 10                                                                  ^
+| "The whole file contains personal information"         | Generic claim. Section 10 requires identification of each exempt portion.                |
+| "Commercial confidence — cannot be partially disclosed" | Contract numbers, dates, amounts are severable; only genuinely confidential terms exempt. |
+| "Would require too much editing"                        | Effort is not a Section 10 exemption; Section 7(9) change-of-form applies.                |
+| "File is one integrated document"                       | Every document is severable at some level. The PIO must attempt.                          |
+===== Drafting the severance clause =====
+Always include in your RTI:
+<code>
+If any portion of the above information is exempt under
+Section 8 or Section 9, kindly apply Section 10(1) and
+disclose the non-exempt portion with reasons stated under
+Section 10(2) for each severance.
+</code>
+And in your first appeal if the PIO refuses wholesale:
+<code>
+The PIO's refusal violates Section 10(1), which requires
+disclosure of non-exempt portions with reasons for severance.
+A bare claim of exemption over the whole record, without
+identifying the specific exempt portions and attempting
+severance, is a non-speaking order appealable on that
+ground alone.
+</code>
+===== Related =====
+  * [[act|Back to the full RTI Act]]
+  * [[act:section-8|Section 8 — Exemptions]]
+  * [[act:section-9|Section 9 — Grounds for rejection]]
+  * [[act:section-19|Section 19 — Appeals]]
+  * [[:explanations:severability|Severability — detailed explainer]]
+  * [[:templates:first-appeal|First Appeal template]]
+===== Sources =====
+  - RTI Act, 2005, Section 10.
+  - //CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
+  - //Bhagat Singh v. CIC//, Delhi HC (2007).
+  - //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
+//Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026//
+{{tag>rti act section-10 severability redaction 2026}}

Was this helpful? — views