Section 10 of Right to Information Act:

Section 10(1)

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.

Section 10(2)

Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing—

(a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;

(b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;

(c) the name and designation of the person giving the decision;

(d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit; and

(e) the applicant’s rights with respect to review of the decision regarding nondisclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of Section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access.

Explained:

Section 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with the principle of severability. It allows citizens to obtain the non-exempt portions of a government record even when some information in that record cannot legally be disclosed. The provision promotes transparency while protecting confidential information where disclosure is restricted by law.

What Does Section 10 of the RTI Act Mean?

Under Section 10, a Public Information Officer (PIO) should not automatically reject an entire RTI application merely because a document contains some exempt information. If the protected portion can reasonably be separated from the remaining content, the applicant may receive the accessible part.

For example, if a government file contains details of a public project along with confidential personal information, the PIO may redact the protected details and provide the remaining information, provided the applicable legal requirements are satisfied.

When partial disclosure is granted, the PIO must inform the applicant about the information withheld, the reasons for the decision, the officer’s name and designation, applicable fees, and the applicant’s rights to challenge the decision.

Important Judgments on Section 10

1. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

The Supreme Court recognised the importance of voters’ right to know relevant information about electoral candidates. Although decided before the RTI Act, the judgment supports the broader principle of transparency in public affairs.

2. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)

The Supreme Court examined transparency, privacy and disclosure under the RTI framework. The judgment highlights the need to balance public access to information against legitimate confidentiality and privacy interests.

3. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015)

The Supreme Court emphasised transparency and accountability in the context of information held by the Reserve Bank of India. The decision is relevant to understanding disclosure obligations, although it did not primarily interpret Section 10.

Conclusion

Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005, protects the public’s right to access information by encouraging partial disclosure instead of unnecessary blanket refusals. It helps maintain a balance between transparency and confidentiality. Citizens who receive only part of a requested record can examine the reasons for withholding the remaining information and consider an appeal under Section 19 of the Act.