Justification for Denial is Mandatory — Speaking Order Requirement

• Section 7(8) — if rejecting, the PIO must state (i) reasons, (ii) period within which appeal lies, (iii) particulars of the First Appellate Authority.
• Section 19(5) — onus to prove that a denial was justified lies with the PIO.
• Section 19(8)(b) — Commission can require compliance if the refusal was unreasoned.
• Section 20 — Rs 25,000 penalty if denial was malicious, unreasonable, or persistently delayed.

A speaking order on an RTI denial has five mandatory elements:

1. The specific sub-clause of Section 8 or Section 9 invoked — e.g., “Section 8(1)(j)” not just “Section 8”.
2. Why that sub-clause applies to these facts — e.g., “the record names a private individual whose information, if disclosed, would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, as explained in Girish Deshpande”.
3. Whether severance under Section 10 was considered — and if rejected, why.
4. Whether the public-interest override under Section 8(2) was weighed — and the conclusion.
5. Appellate details — name, designation, address, and the 30-day appeal window.

When filing a first appeal under Section 19(1), use this paragraph:

The Public Information Officer's reply dated [X] does not
comply with Section 7(8) of the RTI Act. The reply does not
cite a specific sub-clause of Section 8 or Section 9, does not
apply any provision to the facts of this case, and does not
consider severance under Section 10 or the public interest
override under Section 8(2). Per Section 19(5), the burden of
proving that the denial is justified lies on the PIO, and in
the absence of a speaking order, the denial must be set aside
and the information directed to be disclosed in full.

• Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 — PIO must apply mind to each request individually; blanket refusals are unsustainable.
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2020) 11 SCC 345 — Information Commissions have a supervisory duty to ensure PIOs issue reasoned orders.
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC, Delhi HC (2007) — Section 8(1)(h) requires the PIO to show how disclosure would impede an investigation; bare assertion is not enough.
• CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 — the PIO cannot refuse on volume; Section 7(9) permits only change of form.

1. Read the PIO's reply against the five-element checklist above.
2. Identify which elements are missing — sub-clause, application to facts, severance analysis, public interest, appellate details.
3. File a first appeal within 30 days using the template above.
4. Request both remedies in the appeal: (a) set aside the non-speaking order; (b) direct disclosure on merit.
5. If the FAA's order is also non-speaking, file a second appeal under Section 19(3) to the CIC or SIC within 90 days.
6. Prayer for penalty — include Section 20 prayer for wilful refusal if this is the PIO's pattern across multiple cases.

Before filing the first appeal, run the PIO's reply through this 5-question audit:

1. Did they name the sub-clause?
2. Did they apply it to the facts?
3. Did they consider severance?
4. Did they weigh public interest?
5. Did they provide FAA details?

For every “No”, you have an appealable ground. Most denials fail at least two of the five.

Partial disclosure without reasons for the withheld portion violates Section 10(1) which requires that the reasons and findings be recorded. Appealable on both Section 7(8) and Section 10(1) grounds.

Yes — and this is a good strategic move. Request in your RTI: “If any exemption is claimed, kindly cite the specific sub-clause, the reasons applied to these facts, and the case law relied upon.” Raises the cost of a bad refusal.

Section 4(2) encourages suo motu disclosure, but if the link doesn't reach the specific information requested, this is a non-speaking response. Ask for the direct URL or file number.

Audit any RTI refusal you have received against the 5-question checklist above. If it fails any one, use the appeal paragraph above and file under the First Appeal template.

• The RTI Act, 2005
• Grounds for rejection — Section 8 and 9
• Severability — Section 10
• Public interest override — Section 8(2)
• Why RTI applications get rejected
• First Appeal template
• PIO reply after DPDP 2025

1. Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 7(8), 19(5), 19(8)(b), 20.
2. Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1.
3. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2020) 11 SCC 345.
4. Bhagat Singh v. CIC and Ors., Delhi High Court (2007).
5. CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.

Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026

Complete guide on when and how a PIO can deny information under the RTI Act — and how to challenge wrongful denials:

1. Step 1: Legal basis for denial. (a) the RTI Act does NOT give an absolute right to information — the PIO can deny information only on specific grounds listed in Section 8(1) (10 exemptions), Section 9 (infringement of copyright), and Section 11 (third party information procedure), (b) the PIO must cite the specific sub-section of Section 8(1) — a bare citation of “Section 8” without specifying the sub-section is legally insufficient and can be challenged, © the PIO must provide reasons in writing — under Section 7(8) — the PIO must communicate to the applicant: (i) the fact of rejection, (ii) the specific exemption applied, (iii) the reasons for rejection, (iv) the details of the First Appellate Authority, (v) the period within which the appeal can be filed, (d) a denial without reasons — or with vague reasons — is a violation of Section 7(8) and can be overturned on appeal.
2. Step 2: Section 8(1) exemptions explained. (a) Section 8(1)(a): sovereignty, security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the State — includes defence secrets, diplomatic communications, and information that could aid enemies — but cannot be used to deny routine administrative information, (b) Section 8(1)(b): information expressly forbidden by a court of law or tribunal — or whose disclosure would constitute contempt of court — the PIO must cite the specific court order, © Section 8(1)©: information whose disclosure would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or State Legislature — rarely used — the PIO must cite the specific privilege, (d) Section 8(1)(d): commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property — whose disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party — but NOT if the larger public interest warrants disclosure under Section 8(2), (e) Section 8(1)(e): information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship — includes doctor-patient, lawyer-client, banker-customer — but the fiduciary relationship must be established, (f) Section 8(1)(f): information received in confidence from a foreign government — rarely used, (g) Section 8(1)(g): information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person — or identify the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement purposes, (h) Section 8(1)(h): information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders — but NOT after the investigation is complete and the case is closed, (i) Section 8(1)(i): cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries, and other officers — but the decision itself is disclosable after the decision is made — and the reasons must be disclosed — under the proviso to Section 8(1)(i), (j) Section 8(1)(j): personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest — or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual — but NOT if the larger public interest justifies disclosure.
3. Step 3: Common wrongful denial patterns. (a) blanket denial citing “Section 8” without specifying the sub-section — this is the most common wrongful denial pattern — and is legally insufficient, (b) citing Section 8(1)(d) for routine government contracts — the PIO claims “commercial confidence” for information that is already in the public domain or that relates to public expenditure — the CIC has repeatedly held that public interest overrides commercial confidence in government contracts, © citing Section 8(1)(h) for closed investigations — the PIO claims “investigation would be impeded” even after the case is closed — the CIC has held that once the investigation is complete, Section 8(1)(h) does not apply, (d) citing Section 8(1)(j) for official conduct — the PIO claims “personal information” for information about a public servant's official duties — the CIC has held that official conduct is a public activity — and Section 8(1)(j) does not apply to official acts, (e) citing Section 8(1)(a) for routine information — the PIO claims “security” for information that has no security implications — the CIC has held that Section 8(1)(a) must be applied narrowly, (f) not applying severability under Section 10 — the PIO rejects the entire request instead of severing the exempt portion and providing the rest, (g) not considering the public interest override under Section 8(2) — the PIO does not consider whether the larger public interest warrants disclosure — even when the exemption applies.
4. Step 4: How to challenge a denial. (a) file a First Appeal (under Section 19(1) — within 30 days of the PIO's rejection — with the FAA — cite the specific grounds: (i) the PIO did not cite the specific sub-section, (ii) the exemption does not apply, (iii) the PIO did not apply severability, (iv) the PIO did not consider the public interest override), (b) file a Second Appeal (under Section 19(3) — within 90 days of the FAA's order — or non-response — with the Central/State Information Commission), © file a complaint (under Section 18 — with the Information Commission — for: (i) refusal to accept the RTI application, (ii) not responding within 30 days, (iii) giving false information, (iv) demanding excessive fees — the Commission can impose a penalty under Section 20), (d) file a writ petition (under Article 226 — in the High Court — if the Commission does not respond — or the order is not implemented — the court can direct the PIO to disclose the information).
5. Step 5: Key CIC/SIC precedents. (a) CIC order (2008): the PIO must cite the specific sub-section of Section 8(1) — a bare citation of “Section 8” is insufficient, (b) CIC order (2009): Section 8(1)(d) does not apply to government contracts — public interest overrides commercial confidence, © CIC order (2010): Section 8(1)(h) does not apply after the investigation is complete, (d) CIC order (2011): Section 8(1)(j) does not apply to official conduct of public servants, (e) CIC order (2012): severability under Section 10 must be applied — the PIO cannot reject the entire request, (f) Supreme Court (CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011): file notings are disclosable — Section 8(1)(d) does not apply to file notings on policy matters, (g) Supreme Court (State of UP vs. Raj Narain, 1975): the right to information is implicit in Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression.
6. Step 6: Drafting the appeal against denial. (a) cite the specific exemption the PIO applied — and explain why it does not apply, (b) cite the relevant CIC/SIC order — or Supreme Court/High Court judgment — that supports your case, © demand severability — if the exemption applies to part of the information — demand the rest under Section 10, (d) demand the public interest override — under Section 8(2) — explain why the larger public interest warrants disclosure, (e) demand penalty — under Section 20(1) — for the PIO's wrongful denial — Rs 250 per day up to Rs 25,000, (f) demand compensation — under Section 19(8)(b) — for the harm caused by the non-disclosure, (g) Example: An RTI applicant asked for the file notings on a government contract — the PIO denied under Section 8(1)(d) — the applicant filed a first appeal citing: (i) CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (file notings are disclosable), (ii) Section 8(2) (public interest override — the contract involves public expenditure), (iii) Section 10 (severability — even if part is exempt, the rest should be disclosed) — the FAA ordered the PIO to disclose the file notings — with severability.

See Justification for Denial and First Appeal.