Section 10: How to Get the Non-Exempt Parts of a Document When the Rest Is Withheld

Here is a situation that happens more often than it should. You file an RTI application asking for a copy of a government contract, an inspection report, or a personnel file. The CPIO sends back a reply citing Section 8(1)(d) or Section 8(1)(j) and refuses to give you anything at all. No document. Not even the parts that have nothing to do with the allegedly sensitive information.

That refusal is almost certainly wrong.

Section 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 exists specifically to address this problem. It establishes a principle called severability — the idea that if a document contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the public authority must give you the non-exempt part. The entire document cannot be hidden behind a single exempt paragraph. The CPIO's job is to redact what is actually protected and hand over the rest.

Understanding Section 10 can turn a complete refusal into a partial disclosure — and in many cases, the non-exempt portions of a document are exactly what you needed in the first place.

Section 10(1): The Severability Principle

Section 10(1) of the RTI Act states:

"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."

Let's break that down into plain English.

If a CPIO decides that your RTI request touches an exempt category — say, commercial confidence under Section 8(1)(d), or personal information under Section 8(1)(j) — the CPIO cannot simply stop there and give you nothing. Instead, the CPIO must look at the document itself and ask a further question: is there a part of this document that does not contain the exempt information, and can that part be separated from the rest without being misleading or meaningless?

If the answer is yes — and it usually is — the CPIO must give you that separated part. The exemption only covers what it actually covers. It does not act as a blanket over the entire document.

The phrase "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" is significant. It means Section 10(1) overrides any other provision that might otherwise justify a blanket refusal. Even where a valid exemption under Section 8 applies, the duty to provide the non-exempt portion still stands.

This is not a discretionary favour the CPIO can choose to offer. The word "may" in the section is used in the sense of permitting the provision of access — it describes what can be given — but the obligation to do so flows from the overall scheme of the Act and has been consistently read as a duty by the Central Information Commission and courts. A CPIO who withholds an entire document when parts of it are clearly non-exempt is not applying the law correctly.

Section 10(2): Your Right to Know What Was Severed and Why

Even when the CPIO correctly applies the severability principle and gives you a partially redacted document, Section 10(2) places an additional obligation on them.

When a portion of a document is withheld and only the rest is provided, the CPIO must give the applicant:

1. The fact that only part of the record is being provided — so you know a redaction has taken place, rather than receiving a document that appears complete but is not.
2. The reasons for the severance — which exemption applies, and why the specific withheld portion falls within it.
3. The name and designation of the officer who decided to withhold the severed portion — creating a clear line of accountability.

This is not a minor procedural technicality. Section 10(2) creates a paper trail. You now know which officer made the decision to withhold, on what ground, and you are in a position to challenge that decision on appeal. Without Section 10(2) compliance, a partially redacted document is effectively anonymous — you have no idea who decided to black out that paragraph or why.

If you receive a heavily redacted document and none of this information is provided alongside it, the CPIO has not complied with Section 10(2). That failure is an independent ground for a First Appeal.

Practical Examples: How Severability Works in the Real World

The principle becomes clearer when you see it applied to actual document types that RTI applicants commonly request.

Government Contracts

Suppose you file an RTI asking for a copy of a contract between a government ministry and a private infrastructure company. The ministry replies citing Section 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence — and gives you nothing.

Now apply the severability test. A typical government contract has many components. The parties to the contract, the project description, the contract award date, the duration of the project, the obligations of each party, the penalty and termination clauses, and the dispute resolution mechanism are almost certainly not commercially sensitive. What might legitimately be withheld are things like detailed unit rate schedules, proprietary cost breakdowns, or trade secrets embedded in technical specifications.

Under Section 10(1), the ministry should give you the contract with only the genuinely sensitive pricing schedules or proprietary technical details redacted. The identity of the parties, the scope of work, the project value at a headline level, and the key obligations can and should be provided. Withholding the entire contract because the price schedule is exempt is not a proper application of Section 8(1)(d) — it is a misuse of an exemption to avoid scrutiny of a public procurement decision.

Personnel and Service Files

You request an employee's service file from a public authority. The CPIO refuses entirely under Section 8(1)(j) — personal information.

Even if some genuinely personal information in that file (say, medical history, details of family members, or home address) is legitimately exempt, the file will also contain information that relates directly to the employee's public function — the organisational chart showing their position, their job description, their posting and transfer history, promotion orders, and similar matters. The CIC and courts have consistently held that a government employee's exercise of their official role is not private information — it is a record of the use of public authority, and citizens are entitled to it.

Under Section 10(1), the CPIO should provide the service record with only the genuinely private personal information redacted. The official portions — postings, designations, seniority — should come through.

Investigation and Inquiry Reports

You ask for a departmental inquiry report into a public complaint. The CPIO cites Section 8(1)(h) — impeding investigation or prosecution — and refuses.

Even if the investigation is ongoing and certain procedural details, informant identities, or evidence yet to be tested in proceedings are properly withheld, an inquiry report typically contains a great deal more than that: the background facts that gave rise to the inquiry, the dates of the investigation, the names of the subject officials (who are already known), and the general findings. These may well be severable from the operationally sensitive parts.

Ask whether the investigation is actually still ongoing. Section 8(1)(h) ceases to apply once a matter is concluded. If the inquiry is complete, the exemption may not even apply, and severability becomes even more clearly required for whatever remains.

Using Section 10 in a First Appeal

If the CPIO gave you nothing when a partially disclosed document was the correct response, your First Appeal is the place to make this argument precisely.

When you received no document at all:

State clearly in your First Appeal: "The CPIO withheld the entire name the document. Under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, even where an exemption applies, access must be provided to the portions of the record that do not contain exempt information and which can reasonably be severed from the exempt portions. I request the First Appellate Authority to direct the CPIO to identify the non-exempt portions of the document, sever the exempt portions, and provide the rest within the period prescribed under the Act."

When you received a heavily redacted document with no explanation:

State: "The CPIO has provided a partially redacted document but has not complied with Section 10(2) of the RTI Act. Under Section 10(2), the CPIO is required to specify: (a) the fact that only part of the record is being provided, (b) the reasons for the severance, and (c) the name and designation of the officer deciding to withhold the severed portion. None of this information was provided with the document. I request the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide the Section 10(2) information along with a fresh, properly explained partial disclosure."

When the redactions appear to be disproportionate:

State: "The CPIO has redacted describe what was blacked out — e.g., entire sections of a contract, all operational details of a report. The exemption cited — Section 8(1)(d)/8(1)(j)/8(1)(h) — does not extend to the entirety of the information withheld. The exempt portions, if any, are severable from the non-exempt portions. The CPIO has not applied the severability test required by Section 10(1) and has instead used the exemption as a blanket justification to withhold the entire document. I request the FAA to direct the CPIO to perform a document-level severability analysis and provide the non-exempt portions."

File your First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act with the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of the date of the CPIO's decision, or within 30 days of the expiry of the 30-day response period (whichever is applicable).

Section 10 and the Public Interest Override: Use Both Together

Section 10 is about structure — it is concerned with carving out the non-exempt portion of a document. The public interest override in Section 8(2) is about substance — it says that even the exempt portions of a document may need to be disclosed if the public interest in doing so outweighs the harm.

These are two different tools, and a well-argued appeal will use both.

Imagine you are appealing a refusal to provide a government contract. The CPIO has cited Section 8(1)(d) — commercial confidence — to withhold the entire contract, including the price schedules and the general scope of work.

Your appeal can make two independent arguments:

Argument 1 (Section 10 — Severability): Even if the commercial pricing terms in the contract are genuinely exempt under Section 8(1)(d), the remaining portions of the contract — the parties, the project scope, the obligations, the duration, the accountability and penalty clauses — do not contain commercially sensitive information. They must be provided under Section 10(1). The CPIO has not performed the severability analysis that the Act requires.

Argument 2 (Section 8(2) — Public Interest Override): Alternatively, even the commercial pricing terms of a contract funded by public money may need to be disclosed because the public interest in transparency over the use of taxpayer funds outweighs the third party's commercial interest in secrecy. The contract was not a private transaction — it was a government procurement made on behalf of citizens. The CPIO has not considered whether the Section 8(2) test is satisfied.

These are structurally independent arguments. Argument 1 does not require you to overcome the exemption — it says there are parts of the document that are not even within the exemption's scope. Argument 2 accepts the exemption might technically apply but says the public interest overrides it anyway. Raising both gives the FAA or the CIC multiple independent grounds to order disclosure.

When Severability Is Genuinely Not Possible

It is worth being honest about the limits of Section 10. Not every document can be meaningfully severed.

Some information is so tightly integrated that removing the exempt portion leaves nothing coherent behind. A single-paragraph internal note that is entirely about a named employee's medical condition, for example, may have no non-personal components to sever. A brief diplomatic communication that contains nothing but the sensitive matter being protected may be unseverable by its nature.

In cases like these, severability under Section 10(1) is genuinely not applicable — there is no "part of the record" that does not contain exempt information. The CPIO is correct to say that there is nothing that can be provided under the section.

But here is the key point: even in this situation, the CPIO is still required to comply with Section 10(2). You must still be told that the document is being withheld entirely, why the exemption applies to the whole document, and who made that decision. A document that is legitimately entirely exempt still needs that explanation. If the CPIO withholds a document entirely and simply cites an exemption without this information, they have not complied with Section 10(2) regardless of whether severability was possible.

A Quick Checklist When You Receive a Refusal

When you receive a partial or complete refusal to your RTI application, work through these questions before accepting it:

1. Did the CPIO specify which sub-section of Section 8 applies? A refusal that says only "information is exempt" without identifying the specific sub-section is legally defective. Section 8 has ten distinct sub-sections, and each has different scope and limits.

2. Did the CPIO provide any non-exempt portions of the document? If the CPIO withheld an entire document, ask whether any parts of that document are clearly outside the scope of the exemption cited. If yes, Section 10(1) required those parts to be provided.

3. If a partial document was given, was Section 10(2) complied with? Did the CPIO tell you that only part of the document was being given, explain why specific parts were withheld, and name the officer who made the decision? If not, Section 10(2) was not followed.

4. Is the exemption cited even applicable to your specific request? Run the actual facts of what you asked against the specific sub-section cited. Many refusals cite exemptions that do not actually fit the information requested. If you asked for the terms of a government project and the refusal cites Section 8(1)(g) (endangerment of life), that citation is facially inapplicable.

5. Have you considered the Section 8(2) public interest argument? Even if the exemption technically applies to part or all of the document, has the CPIO weighed whether public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm? If the CPIO has not addressed Section 8(2) at all, that is a gap you can exploit in a First Appeal.

Any missing element in this list strengthens your appeal and gives the FAA a concrete legal basis to direct fresh disclosure.

Why Section 10 Matters Beyond Individual RTI Applications

There is a broader principle at stake here that goes beyond any single application.

When a CPIO uses an exemption to withhold an entire document rather than performing the severability analysis that Section 10(1) requires, they are doing two things simultaneously: incorrectly applying the law, and setting a norm that RTI applicants should accept blanket refusals without challenge.

Every applicant who understands and invokes Section 10 — in a First Appeal, in a Second Appeal to the CIC — teaches the public authority that the law must be applied properly. The CIC has repeatedly directed public authorities to perform severability analyses and provide non-exempt portions. Each such order builds a body of precedent that makes the next blanket refusal harder to sustain.

Section 10 is not a technical loophole or a procedural trick. It is a structural safeguard built into the RTI Act to make sure that exemptions are used narrowly, as the Parliament intended — not as a wholesale excuse to avoid transparency wherever inconvenient.

If you have received a complete or partial refusal and you believe the CPIO did not apply the severability principle correctly, RTISathi can help you draft a focused First Appeal that puts the right legal arguments in front of the First Appellate Authority. The law is on your side — Section 10 says so plainly.