M4, Drafting the Reply, Format, Severability, Section 10

Module 4 of 10. Reading time about 40 minutes. End-of-module quiz unlocks Module 5.

A reply that survives an appeal is reasoned, item-wise, statute-anchored, and severability-respecting. This module gives you the template. It is the template that the RTI Wiki PIO Reply Checker will validate your drafts against.

A casual PIO reply that says “exempted under section 8(1)” without working through severability is the single most common reason a section 20 penalty is imposed. The CIC has held in repeated orders that a reasoned order is a statutory duty, not a courtesy. Drafting is not bureaucratic prose, it is a quasi-judicial act.

Every reply must begin with a header that identifies the document as a reply under the RTI Act 2005. The standard header has the following fields.

1. Name of the public authority on letterhead.
2. Reference, inward serial number and date of receipt.
3. Reply number and date of dispatch.
4. To, name and address of applicant.
5. Subject, RTI application dated DD-MM-YYYY, reply under section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

A short paragraph that sets the context.

“With reference to your application under the Right to Information Act 2005 received on DD-MM-YYYY and registered at inward number XYZ, the information held by this public authority and disclosable under the Act is provided below. Items not held by this authority or exempted under the Act are dealt with separately with reasons.”

This is the body of the reply. For each numbered query in the application, provide an item-wise response. Do not use generic language. The pattern for each item is:

Item N, restate the query in one line.

Reply, the substantive reply.

Statutory basis, if disclosed, “Disclosable as held by this authority under section 2(f) read with section 7(1).” If exempted, “Exempted under section 8(1)(X) for the following reasons.” If severed, “Partially disclosed under section 10 for the following reasons. The redacted portion falls under section 8(1)(X) for the following reasons.”

Public interest finding (only where section 8 invoked), “The public interest override under section 8(2) has been considered. The harm to the protected interest outweighs / is outweighed by the larger public interest in disclosure because…”

A schedule of pages enclosed, page count, fee charged per page, total fee, mode of receipt of fee.

The First Appellate Authority contact must be in the reply. The standard paragraph is:

“If you are aggrieved by this reply or the information provided, you may prefer a first appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 within thirty days from receipt of this reply to the First Appellate Authority, Shri/Smt. [Designation], [Public Authority], [Address], [E-mail], [Telephone].”

PIO name, designation, office address, telephone, e-mail, official seal.

Section 10(1), “Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.”

Section 10(2), “Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing, (a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided, (b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based, © the name and designation of the person giving the decision, (d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit, and (e) his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 and the time limit, process and any other form of access.”

Severability is not optional. If even a single line of a document can be safely disclosed, that line must be disclosed. The PIO must:

1. Identify the exempt portion with a clause of section 8 or 9 or 24.
2. Identify the non-exempt portion that can be reasonably severed.
3. Make a clean copy in which the exempt portion is redacted (blanked or hatched) without revealing what was redacted.
4. Mention each redaction with a foot-note that gives the section invoked and the one-line reason.
5. Supply the redacted document to the applicant.

Item 4 of the application, “Please provide a copy of the file noting on the tender award for Project Alpha, including the rates quoted by all bidders.”

Reply, “Partially disclosed. The successful bidder's rate and the comparative statement are enclosed. The rates of unsuccessful bidders that they have marked confidential under the bid-submission protocol have been redacted at sheet 3 and sheet 5, paragraphs 4 and 7. The redaction is under section 8(1)(d) read with section 11. The successful bidder's identity, the contract value, and the file noting on award are disclosed. Public interest under section 8(2) has been considered. The successful bid is disclosed to enable public scrutiny. The unsuccessful bidders' confidential rates are redacted because their disclosure would harm the competitive position of those bidders without a commensurate public interest.”

This reply will survive a first appeal. A bare “exempted under section 8(1)(d)” will not.

1. Use a black box or solid hatched rectangle. Do not use a thin line through the text, that can be undone.
2. For digital PDFs, use the redaction tool with permanent flatten, not just a black layer.
3. Number each redaction so that the foot-note can refer to it.
4. Foot-note format, “Redaction at para X, page Y, under section 8(1)(Z), reason in one line.”

For every section 8 invocation, your reply must contain a short paragraph with this structure.

1. Statement of the clause being invoked.
2. The factual content of the record that triggers the clause.
3. The legal test from the relevant case law.
4. The application of the test to the facts.
5. The section 8(2) public interest balancing.
6. The conclusion.

A two-line paragraph that ticks each box is enough. A bare citation is not.

For Central Government, the rate under the 2005 Rules is two rupees per page in A4 or A3 size. For larger sheets, the actual cost as per office rates. For samples and models, the actual cost or price. State Governments have similar slabs.

Under section 7(5), where the information is to be provided in printed form, the fee is two rupees per A4 page. Where the information is in the form of inspection, the first hour is free, and each subsequent hour or part thereof is charged at the rate prescribed (commonly five rupees per hour). The applicant has a right to inspect under section 2(j). Use this when the volume is large.

The reply must enumerate the fee, “Photocopy charges, 28 A4 pages at two rupees per page, total fifty-six rupees. Postal charges, included in office overheads. Total fee already deposited, fifty-six rupees vide IPO number XYZ dated DD-MM-YYYY.” This itemisation is what saves you in a fee dispute before the FAA.

For multi-file requests, your reply can include an inspection invitation paragraph.

“In view of the volume of records requested, you are invited to inspect the relevant files at this office on any working day between 10 am and 5 pm. Please intimate three working days in advance to enable file retrieval. The first hour of inspection is free. Each subsequent hour is charged at the rate of five rupees. After inspection, you may identify the pages required, and copies of those pages will be supplied at two rupees per A4 page within five working days.”

This paragraph is best practice. It also reduces your photocopy workload.

A reasoned order is your strongest defence. The CIC has set aside replies that lacked reasoning even where the underlying exemption was correctly invoked. Conversely, the CIC has upheld replies that invoked an exemption with a reasoned analysis, even where it might have preferred a different conclusion.

The minimum reasoning per exemption is one sentence that connects facts to the clause and one sentence on section 8(2). Half a page is rarely needed. Two sentences are.

“Item N. The information sought is not held by this public authority within the meaning of section 2(j) read with section 6(3). The information is held by the [name of authority] at [address]. A copy of your application is being transferred to that authority under section 6(3) and you are advised that the transferred application will be replied to by that authority within thirty days of its receipt.”

“Item N. The information sought is not held by this public authority and is not held by any other public authority within the meaning of section 2(h). The information appears to be in the private domain. The Act does not apply to such information. You are at liberty to approach the relevant private body through any other lawful means.”

“Item N. The request is not specific enough for this public authority to identify the records to be supplied. You are requested to specify the records, the period, and the subject matter in greater detail. As a PIO, reasonable assistance under section 5(3) is offered. You may contact the undersigned to refine the request.”

Note, this paragraph is to be used sparingly. The CIC has frowned upon over-use of vagueness as a delaying tactic.

“Item N. The information sought requires the creation of a new analysis or compilation that does not exist in the records of this public authority. The Act under section 2(j) gives access to information that is held in records. As a PIO, this office is not required to create new information. The records that are held and are relevant are enclosed as Annexure A.”

“With reference to your application received at 11 am on DD-MM-YYYY, the matter has been treated as a life-and-liberty request under the proviso to section 7(1). The reply is dispatched within forty-eight hours. The information sought is…”

The following is a minimal but defensible reply template. Adapt the bracketed fields to your file.

“[Letterhead of Public Authority]

Reference, [Inward Number] dated DD-MM-YYYY Reply Number, [PIO/RTI/YYYY-YY/NNN] dated DD-MM-YYYY

To, [Applicant Name] [Applicant Address]

Subject, RTI Application dated DD-MM-YYYY, Reply under section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

Sir / Madam,

With reference to your application under the Right to Information Act 2005 received on DD-MM-YYYY at this office, the information held by this public authority and disclosable is provided below. Items not held or exempted are dealt with separately with reasons.

Item 1, [Restate query]. Reply, [Substantive reply]. Statutory basis, [Section invoked]. [Severability note if any]. [Public interest finding if any].

Item 2, …

Enclosures, [List of annexures and page counts].

Fee, [Itemised fee summary].

If you are aggrieved by this reply, you may prefer a first appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 within thirty days from receipt of this reply to:

First Appellate Authority, [Designation], [Public Authority], [Address], [E-mail], [Telephone].

Yours faithfully,

[PIO Name and Designation] Central / State Public Information Officer [Public Authority] [Telephone, E-mail] [Office Seal]”

Before you sign and dispatch, run this five-point check.

1. Have I replied item-wise to every numbered query?
2. For every section 8 invocation, have I given the clause, the facts, the test, the application, the section 8(2) finding, and a conclusion?
3. For every redaction, have I applied severability under section 10 and explained?
4. Have I named the FAA with designation, address, and contact?
5. Have I attached every enclosure listed and itemised the fee?

If all five answer yes, dispatch. If any answer no, fix before sign.

This module gave you the reply template, the severability framework, the redaction conventions, and the reasoned-order structure. In Module 5 we go deep into the exemptions themselves, section 8, section 9, and section 24, clause by clause.

For a citizen-side primer, see How to read a PIO reply on RTI Wiki. For PIO templates, see PIO Reply Checker.

This module is part of the RTI Wiki PIO Certification Course. The course is a Learner Certificate programme. It is NOT accredited by any government or statutory body. The drafting exercises in Module 7 are evaluated by a Large Language Model trained on RTI Wiki content, not by human evaluators. Scores are indicative knowledge measures, not legal advice.

Now take the M4 quiz to proceed to M5.