Severability — s. 10 — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Severability — s. 10

A file rarely contains only secrets. A tender file might have one confidential price column and forty pages of ordinary correspondence. Should the whole file be refused because of one column? Section 10 says no — mask the secret line and release the rest. It is the reason a whole file is almost never refused outright.

Cutting out the exempt part

Section 10 is the severability rule. Where a record contains information part of which is exempt under s. 8 or s. 9, and part of which is not, the PIO must provide only that part which does not contain exempt information and which can reasonably be severed from the exempt part.

When the PIO gives such partial access, s. 10(2) requires him to send a written notice telling the applicant:

that only part of the record is being given, after severance;
the reasons for the decision, including any findings on material questions of fact;
the name and designation of the person giving the decision;
the fee calculation and the amount payable; and
the applicant’s right to appeal the decision.

The practical effect is important and examiner-friendly: severability means a whole document is rarely refused. The exempt lines are blacked out (redacted) and the remainder disclosed. This works together with s. 8(2) (public-interest override) to keep the presumption in favour of disclosure alive even when part of a record is genuinely sensitive.

Section 10(1), RTI Act, 2005: “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.”

In Simple Terms: If only part of a record is secret, the PIO cuts out (redacts) the secret part and gives you the rest, with a reasoned notice and a right to appeal. One exempt line does not lock up the whole file.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the mixed file

Facts. A seeks a project file that contains, on one page, a supplier’s confidential price formula (arguably s. 8(1)(d)), and, on forty other pages, ordinary approvals and correspondence.

Rule. s. 10(1): sever the exempt part; disclose the reasonably severable remainder with a s. 10(2) reasoned notice.

Apply. The PIO masks the confidential price formula and discloses the forty pages of non-exempt material, giving reasons for the severance and telling A of his right to appeal.

Conclusion. Partial disclosure, not blanket refusal — the correct s. 10 outcome.

flowchart TD
    A["Record: part exempt, part not"]
    A --> B{"Can the exempt part be reasonably severed?"}
    B -->|"Yes"| C["Disclose the rest; mask the exempt part"]
    C --> D["s. 10(2) notice: reasons + fee + right to appeal"]
    B -->|"No (inseparably intertwined)"| E["Withhold, with reasons"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,D,E box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B q;

Case Laws

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — where only part is exempt, severance allows disclosure of the remainder; a whole document is not withheld for one exempt element.
RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016) — exempt slivers are severed; the disclosable bulk is released in the public interest.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics