Home  /  Right to Information Act, 2005  /  Section 10

Section 10: Severability

Right to Information Act, 2005 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2005
Section 9 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 11

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 10

Section 10 codifies the statutory doctrine of severability, mandating that where access to a record is refused because it contains exempt information under Section 8, the PIO must sever and grant access to any non-exempt portion that can reasonably be separated, accompanied by a detailed speaking order.

  • Statutory Severability Mandate: Under Section 10(1), where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it relates to information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8, access may be granted to that part of the record which does not contain any exempt information and can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.
  • Mandatory Five-Point Notice under Section 10(2): Where access is granted to a severed portion, the PIO must issue a formal written notice to the applicant detailing: (a) that only part of the record is being provided; (b) the precise reasons and statutory grounds for withholding the remainder; (c) the name and designation of the decision-maker; (d) the calculation of additional fees; and (e) the applicant's right to appeal before the First Appellate Authority or Commission within specified limitation periods.
  • Principle of Proportionality and Meaningful Disclosure: The exercise of redaction and severance must be proportional; severance cannot be exercised so aggressively as to reduce the disclosed text to meaningless, disjointed words, but must meaningfully disclose the substance of official decision-making while masking sensitive personal or confidential data.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481: The Constitution Bench expressly affirmed that Section 10 embodies the principle of severability; held that in judicial appointments and collegium deliberations, personal information, medical reports, and confidential third-party remarks can be severed and masked while disclosing the core resolutions and correspondence.
  • UPSC v. Angesh Kumar (2018) 4 SCC 530: The Supreme Court applied Section 10 to public recruitment examinations, holding that raw marks and scaled scores can be severed and disclosed while redacting evaluator identities and proprietary moderation formulas to preserve examination integrity.
  • Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission (2012 SCC OnLine Del 3410): The Delhi High Court held that a blanket rejection of an entire file or project dossier without undertaking a line-by-line severance analysis under Section 10 violates the mandate of the Act.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Never issue a blanket rejection order covering an entire file merely because certain pages or paragraphs contain sensitive commercial or personal information. Conduct an active redaction exercise under Section 10(1), masking names, personal mobile numbers, PANs, and confidential third-party commercial data, and accompany the partial disclosure with the mandatory five-point speaking order required by Section 10(2).

Section 9 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 11