The preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 is clear: the law's purpose is “to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority”. The approach, therefore, is:

1. Disclosure is the rule. Information held by a public authority is presumed disclosable.
2. Exemption is the exception. It must be specifically invoked, with reasons, under a precise clause of Section 8, Section 9, or Section 24.
3. Exemption is not total. Section 8 ends with a public interest override (Section 8(2)) and Section 10 mandates severability wherever possible.
4. The burden of proof lies on the PIO. Section 19(5) places the onus of showing a denial is justified on the authority that denied it.

A PIO who internalises this grammar produces replies that survive First Appeal and Second Appeal.

1. Section 8(1)(a) — sovereignty and integrity of India, security, strategic / scientific / economic interests, relations with a foreign state, or incitement of an offence.
2. Section 8(1)(b) — information expressly forbidden to be published by any court or tribunal, or where disclosure would constitute contempt of court.
3. Section 8(1)© — information that would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.
4. Section 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence, trade secrets, intellectual property — unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure.
5. Section 8(1)(e) — information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless larger public interest warrants disclosure.
6. Section 8(1)(f) — information received in confidence from a foreign government.
7. Section 8(1)(g) — information that would endanger the life or physical safety of a person, or identify the source of information for assistance.
8. Section 8(1)(h) — information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.
9. Section 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers, including records of deliberations of Council of Ministers and Secretaries — this exemption lifts once the decision has been taken and the matter is complete or over.
10. Section 8(1)(j) — personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy — unless larger public interest is established. (Note: the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, read with DPDP Rules, 2025, has strengthened this exemption.)

The public-interest override (Section 8(2)). Even for exempt categories, a PIO or Appellate Authority may disclose if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest. This is a reasoned balancing exercise, not a formality.

A PIO may refuse access to information where disclosure would infringe copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. This is narrow and does not apply when the copyright is held by the public authority itself.

Where an exempt part of a record is intermingled with disclosable parts, Section 10 requires the PIO to redact the exempt portion and release the rest. A blanket refusal when severability is possible is a routinely struck-down ground at appeal.

Where the information relates to a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the PIO must give written notice to the third party within 5 days of the RTI, hear its objection (within 10 days), and then decide. The third party can also appeal the decision.

Certain intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule (RAW, IB, CBI, NIA, etc.) are generally exempt — except for information relating to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations. The exception is statutory and cannot be narrowed.

The following sequence produces legally sustainable replies.

• Is the applicant an Indian citizen? (Self-declaration sufficient; no proof required.)
• Has the Rs. 10 fee (or state-specified fee) been paid, or is the applicant BPL?
• Is the application in writing (or oral request reduced to writing by the PIO)?

If deficiencies exist, do not reject. Call for cure under the RTI Rules, preserving the filing date.

• If yes, proceed.
• If no, reply factually. The PIO is not required to create information (see Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, Supreme Court, 2010).
• If unclear, make a written enquiry to the custodial section before replying.

If the information is held by another public authority, the PIO must transfer the application under Section 6(3) within 5 days of receipt. Do not reject for wrong-department; transfer.

Map the request to Section 8 / 9 / 11 / 24:

• If no exemption applies, proceed to Step 7 (provide information).
• If exemption applies, identify the specific sub-clause. A generic “Section 8” denial without sub-clause is legally infirm.

Apply Section 8(2). Record reasons in writing. Key tests from CIC jurisprudence:

• Is the information material for a public-policy debate?
• Does non-disclosure shield impropriety?
• Is the applicant acting in a journalistic / research / civic capacity relevant to the subject?

If override applies, disclose. Document the balancing.

Identify the exempt portion. Redact it. Release the rest with a brief note on what has been severed and under which exemption.

If the record relates to a third party treated as confidential by it, serve notice. Allow the third party 10 days to object. Decide with reasoned order.

• 30 days — normal reply deadline (Section 7(1)).
• 48 hours — where information concerns life or liberty (Section 7(1) proviso).
• 35 days — when the application is transferred to another authority; the transferred authority has 30 days from its receipt.
• 40 days — where third-party notice under Section 11 is involved.

Failure to reply within time is deemed refusal under Section 7(2) and exposes the PIO to Section 20 penalty.

Every reply should contain:

• The RTI Registration Number and date of receipt.
• The applicant's name and address.
• A point-by-point response to each question.
• The legal basis of any exemption.
• Fee charged (if any) and mode of payment.
• The First Appellate Authority's name, designation, and address.
• Signature, name, designation, and date.

Ref: RTI/[Authority]/[Year]/[Sr. No.]
Date: DD-MM-YYYY

To,
[Applicant Name and Address]

Subject: Reply to your RTI application dated DD-MM-YYYY under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Sir/Madam,

With reference to your application seeking [briefly describe the nature of the information — e.g., "the annual confidential reports and personal leave details of Shri X, employee of this office"], this Office has examined the request.

The information sought relates to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which bears no demonstrable relationship to any public activity or interest, and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned.

Reliance is placed on:
  1. Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005;
  2. The Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, (2013) 1 SCC 212, which held that service records and annual performance appraisals fall within the protection of Section 8(1)(j).

Having examined the application, and in the absence of any larger public interest put forward by the applicant that would warrant disclosure under Section 8(2), this Office is unable to disclose the requested information.

The applicant is informed of the right to file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, within 30 days of receipt of this reply, before:

The First Appellate Authority,
[Name, Designation, Office, Address]

Yours faithfully,
[Signature]
[Name, Designation]
Central / State Public Information Officer
[Office]

With reference to your application, the information sought pertains to records held by this Office in a fiduciary capacity vis-à-vis [third party / regulated entity / client]. Disclosure would impair the fiduciary relationship and the confidentiality that it implies.

Reliance is placed on Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The scope of the fiduciary exemption was considered by the Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525, which held that the relationship between a regulator and the regulated is not a fiduciary relationship. In the present case, however, the record is one of actual fiduciary trust, and the applicant has not shown a larger public interest that would warrant disclosure under Section 8(2).

[If partial disclosure is possible, add:]
The generic information relating to the subject (other than the fiduciary records) is enclosed after severance under Section 10 of the Act.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

The information sought pertains to an investigation currently being conducted by [authority/agency]. Disclosure at this stage would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.

Accordingly, the information is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

[Important:] This exemption does not extend to the entire case file indefinitely. Specific factual information not prejudicial to the investigation (e.g., date of registration of FIR, section of law, station of registration) will be disclosed where it does not impede the process. A separate application for such factual information will be considered on merits.

The applicant may file a First Appeal before [FAA name, designation, address], within 30 days of receipt of this reply.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

[First reply — to the APPLICANT:]

Your RTI application has been received. The records sought relate to [third-party description], and have been treated as confidential by that third party. In accordance with Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Office has issued notice to the third party on DD-MM-YYYY inviting their representations within 10 days.

A final decision will be communicated to you within 40 days of the date of your application.

[Second communication — NOTICE to the THIRD PARTY:]

Notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Sir/Madam,
An RTI application has been received from [Name] seeking information that relates to [identify the records]. This Office proposes to consider disclosure of the said information. You are hereby given notice that, in case you object to such disclosure, you may make a representation in writing within 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice, setting out the reasons for the objection.

Your representation will be considered before a final decision is taken. The decision shall also be communicated to you, and is appealable under Section 19 of the Act.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

With reference to your RTI application, this Office has examined its records for the period / subject specified in your application.

The information sought is not available on our records because [give factual reason: "the register was not maintained during the relevant period", "the file has been destroyed per record-retention schedule", "the event did not occur", etc.].

Under the established position in //Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer// (Supreme Court, 2010) and consistent CIC jurisprudence, a public authority is not required to create information under the RTI Act. It is, however, under a duty to truthfully certify non-availability with reasons.

If the information is likely held by another public authority, this Office will transfer your application under Section 6(3), and you will be informed.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

With reference to your RTI application dated DD-MM-YYYY, this Office finds that the information sought is held by [Another Public Authority].

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, your application has been transferred to:

The Public Information Officer,
[Correct Authority]
[Address]

The transfer has been effected on DD-MM-YYYY (within 5 days of receipt of your application). You are informed that the 30-day reply clock will run from the date of receipt of the application by the transferee authority.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

This Office has examined your RTI application and the underlying records. A portion of the record relates to [exempt category — Section 8(1)(j) / (e) / (d), etc.]. The remainder is disclosable.

In exercise of Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005, the exempt portion has been severed. The balance is enclosed at pages X to Y of this reply. A brief note on the nature and basis of severance is at Annexure A.

The severed portion will not be disclosed unless the First Appellate Authority / Information Commission directs otherwise on appeal.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

The information sought in your RTI application is already available in the proactive-disclosure section of our website at:

[URL to Section 4 page of the public authority]

The specific page containing the information is [URL of the specific record].

Should you still require a printed / certified copy, kindly indicate so, and the fee for additional copies (Rs. 2 per page) will be communicated.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

With reference to your RTI application, the request as framed is exceptionally broad. Providing the information in the form requested would disproportionately divert the resources of this public authority [explain with specific reasons: number of files, years, staff hours required].

Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information can be provided in a form other than that sought. This Office proposes to provide the information in the following alternative form:

  - [Describe alternative — e.g., "a consolidated statement rather than file-wise copies", "a sample for one representative year", etc.]

Your concurrence to this alternative is sought. If agreed, the information will be supplied within 30 days from your concurrence. Your rights under Section 19 are preserved.

Yours faithfully,
[PIO signature and block]

• Own answer sheet / marks — disclosable. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
• Cut-offs and merit list — disclosable.
• Examiner's identity, scheme of evaluation, moderation formulae — generally exempt under Section 8(1)(e), to protect the integrity of future examinations.
• Recruitment rules and vacancy cycles — disclosable (Section 4 duty).

• Salary drawn by a specific government officer — disclosable in terms of pay band and allowance structure (Section 2(f) + Section 4(1)(b)).
• APAR / ACR grading, medical records, personal leave details — exempt under Section 8(1)(j). Girish Ramchandra Deshpande controls.
• Disciplinary proceedings — final order — generally disclosable post-decision; pre-decisional material may be withheld.

• Inspection reports of regulated banks held by RBI — disclosable. RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
• Individual bank accounts of third parties — exempt under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e).
• Audited balance sheets of PSUs — disclosable.
• Tax-assessment records of third parties — exempt (privacy and statutory secrecy under Income Tax Act Section 138).

• FIR copy — the applicant's own FIR is disclosable; third-party FIRs are generally exempt until filed in court.
• Case diaries, station diary entries during investigation — exempt under Section 8(1)(h).
• Statistical policing data (FIR counts, disposal rates) — disclosable.

• File notings after the decision has been taken — disclosable. R.K. Jain v. UoI, (2013) 14 SCC 1.
• Cabinet papers (Section 8(1)(i)) — exempt until the decision is complete or over; disclosable thereafter.
• Consultation feedback, legal opinions — generally disclosable post-decision; contemporaneously-sensitive legal advice may be withheld under Section 8(1)(d) or privilege.

• Blanket Section 8 denial without citing a sub-clause. Struck down in hundreds of CIC orders.
• Invoking Section 8(1)(j) without a public-interest balancing test. The proviso mandates consideration.
• Refusing service records in bulk when aggregated, anonymised data is disclosable.
• Ignoring Section 10 severability. Even a heavily redacted document is often disclosable.
• Not issuing Section 11 notice before refusing third-party information — procedurally fatal.
• Cryptic single-line replies. A reply without reasons invites First-Appeal remand and Section 20 penalty.
• Demanding “locus” from the applicant. There is no locus test under the RTI Act.
• Charging excessive fees. The Rs. 10 application fee and Rs. 2/page copying cost are statutory; over-charging returns applications improperly.
• Missing the 30-day clock — deemed refusal under Section 7(2).
• Invoking Section 7(9) to reject when the correct response is to propose an alternative form.

Holding. Evaluated answer sheets are “information” under Section 2(f) and disclosable to the examinee. The examining body's “secrecy” argument was rejected.

PIO takeaway. Answer sheet inspection must be provided. Fee can be charged per page.

Holding. Service records, APAR grading, and personal leave details of a government employee are protected under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.

PIO takeaway. Service-record RTIs are generally refusable — but record reasons and address the public-interest proviso.

Holding. The relationship between a regulator and a regulated entity is not a fiduciary relationship. Bank inspection reports are disclosable.

PIO takeaway. Section 8(1)(e) must be invoked carefully. Regulatory supervision is not fiduciary trust.

Holding. File notings are “information” under Section 2(f) and are disclosable, subject to Section 8 exemptions.

PIO takeaway. File notings cannot be withheld in blanket. They must be examined note-by-note.

Holding. The office of the Chief Justice of India is a “public authority” under Section 2(h). Judges' asset disclosures are, in principle, disclosable, subject to Section 8 and the proportional public-interest balance.

PIO takeaway. Constitutional offices are not beyond RTI. Balance is the test, not exemption.

Re-affirmed that “information held by” a public authority includes records of all kinds, subject to narrow exceptions.

Holding. RTI does not require public authorities to answer hypothetical or opinion-based questions, or to create information not in the records.

PIO takeaway. A factual non-availability reply is legitimate, but must be reasoned.

Holding. Six national political parties held to be “public authorities” through substantial indirect financing.

PIO takeaway. “Substantial financing” under Section 2(h)(d)(ii) is broader than direct cash transfers.

A legally sustainable PIO reply has five qualities:

1. Specific. Maps each question to a reason.
2. Reasoned. Shows the balancing the PIO has undertaken, especially for Section 8(1)(j), (d), (e), and (i).
3. Severable. Releases what can be released; redacts only what must be redacted.
4. Timely. Within 30 days, or 48 hours where life / liberty is involved.
5. Appealable. Clearly identifies the First Appellate Authority.

The PIO's role is not that of a gatekeeper. It is that of a neutral information officer who balances competing statutory interests — the citizen's right to know and the protected interests in Section 8. A denial that survives this balancing has the full weight of law. A denial that does not survive this balancing is overturned on First or Second Appeal — and can attract Section 20 penalty.

Q1. Must a PIO give reasons for rejection?
Yes. Section 7(8)(i) mandates that the PIO communicate the reasons for rejection, the provisions relied on, and the name of the appellate authority. A reason-less denial is unlawful.

Q2. Can a PIO refuse because the information is “voluminous”?
Not by itself. The correct response is to invoke Section 7(9) and propose an alternative form (consolidated statement, sample year, digital file). Outright refusal is not permitted.

Q3. What is the standard for Section 8(1)(j) rejection after DPDP 2025?
The DPDP Act, 2023, read with DPDP Rules, 2025, has strengthened third-party privacy. But the RTI Act's Section 8(2) public-interest override continues to operate. Each case must be balanced.

Q4. Can the PIO refuse on the ground that the applicant has not shown “public interest”?
No. There is no “locus standi” or “public-interest threshold” test for filing an RTI. However, public interest becomes relevant at the exemption stage for invoking Section 8(2).

Q5. What if the PIO receives an application in a regional language?
The RTI Act permits applications in Hindi, English, or the official language of the area. The PIO must accept and respond.

Q6. Can a PIO refuse a frivolous / malicious RTI?
The RTI Act does not contain a “frivolous” bar. Section 7(9) allows alternative-form reply; Section 8 may apply on specific questions. But blanket refusal as “frivolous” is not legally sustainable.

Q7. What are the First Appellate Authority's powers?
The FAA under Section 19(1) can confirm, modify, or set aside the PIO's decision; direct disclosure; and set timelines. She cannot impose Section 20 penalties — that is the Information Commission's power.

Q8. Is training mandated for PIOs?
DoPT Office Memoranda prescribe periodic RTI training. Most central and state capacity-building institutions run RTI modules; compliance is uneven.

A good PIO reply is a small legal artefact. It shows the applicant that her request has been read, weighed against statute, and answered with reasons. It shows the First Appellate Authority that the PIO has considered severability, public interest, and timelines. It shows the Commission — on appeal — that the denial is a balanced exercise of statutory discretion, not a reflex.

The Act does not require a PIO to be a lawyer. It requires a PIO to be a careful reader of the record and a reasoned writer of the reply. With the framework, templates, and case law in this guide, a PIO can discharge that duty with confidence — and the RTI Act's larger promise of transparency is served.

• How to file RTI in India — 12-step guide
• RTI for beginners
• Why RTI gets rejected — and how to prevent it
• First Appeal — Section 19(1)
• Second Appeal — CIC / SIC
• Guidelines for PIOs (longer reference)
• PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025
• 10 landmark CIC decisions
• Pillar — RTI Mastery

• Right to Information Act, 2005 (as amended 2019)
• DPDP Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025 (Section 44(3) impact on RTI)
• Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission, (2013) 1 SCC 212
• Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525
• R.K. Jain v. Union of India, (2013) 14 SCC 1
• CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481
• Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer, (2010) 2 SCC 1
• DoPT Master Circular on RTI Act implementation — dopt.gov.in
• Central Information Commission orders — cic.gov.in

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026. Section references from the RTI Act, 2005 (as amended). Case citations as in the Supreme Court Cases reporter series. Readers are advised to verify any specific citation against the primary judgment before use in formal proceedings.