Sections 9 and 10 of the RTI Act: Copyright-Based Rejection and Severability

Sections 9 and 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 govern two connected but different questions: when access to information may be refused because it would infringe another person's copyright, and how a public authority should disclose the non-exempt portions of a record even if other portions must be withheld.

Section 9 - Grounds for rejection to access in certain cases

Meaning and scope. Section 9 provides an additional, specific ground for refusal, without prejudice to the exemptions under Section 8. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or State Public Information Officer (SPIO) may reject a request where providing access would involve infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.

Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.

The provision is not a general exemption for all commercially produced, privately authored or copyrighted material. The officer must consider whether the particular access requested would involve an infringement of copyright owned by someone other than the State. Copyright issues should be assessed in light of the applicable provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, including its statutory limitations and exceptions. Copyright held by the State is not itself a Section 9 ground for refusal.

Difference from Section 8(1)(d): Section 8(1)(d) concerns commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property where disclosure would harm a third party's competitive position, subject to the larger-public-interest qualification. Section 9 specifically addresses infringement of copyright owned by a person other than the State. The tests should not be treated as interchangeable.

Section 10 - Severability

Section 10(1): disclosure of the separable, non-exempt part

When a requested record contains information exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, Section 10(1) permits access to the part that is not exempt and can reasonably be severed from the exempt portion. Severability is the process of separating or redacting protected passages, fields or pages so that the remaining disclosable information can be supplied.

The public authority should examine whether redaction can preserve protected interests while making the rest of the record available. Section 10 does not override a valid exemption for the protected content, and it does not require creation of a new record.

Section 10(2): mandatory particulars in a partial-disclosure notice

When only part of a record is supplied under Section 10(1), the CPIO or SPIO must notify the applicant of all the following:

1. Partial disclosure: that only the part remaining after removal of exempt material is being provided.
2. Reasons and findings: the reasons for the decision, including findings on material questions of fact and the material on which those findings are based.
3. Decision-maker: the name and designation of the person making the decision.
4. Fees: the calculated fees and the amount to be deposited, where applicable.
5. Review rights: the applicant's right to challenge non-disclosure, the fee charged or the form of access, with particulars of the senior officer under Section 19(1), or the relevant Information Commission, and the applicable time limits, process and other forms of access.

Section 7(8) separately requires communication of reasons, appeal period and appellate-authority details when a request is rejected. Under Section 7, the ordinary response period is 30 days, subject to statutory exceptions. A first appeal under Section 19(1) is ordinarily made within 30 days of the decision or expiry of the response period; the appellate authority may admit a delayed appeal for sufficient cause.

Practical application of Sections 9 and 10

• Third-party copyrighted work: an applicant seeks reproduction of a privately owned copyrighted publication in government custody. The officer must examine whether granting that form of access would infringe copyright; mere possession by a public authority does not automatically eliminate copyright.
• Partly exempt file: a file contains disclosable administrative decisions and protected personal or security-sensitive details. The authority should consider supplying the decision and other non-exempt portions after reasonably severing the exempt passages.
• Incomplete reply: if some pages or passages are withheld, the Section 10(2) notice must explain the partial disclosure and provide the specified review information rather than merely sending unexplained blacked-out pages.

How Sections 8, 9 and 10 work together

Section 8 identifies statutory exemptions from disclosure and includes a public-interest balancing provision under Section 8(2). Section 9 addresses requests whose fulfilment would infringe third-party copyright. Section 10 addresses access to the reasonably separable, non-exempt parts of records. The applicability of each provision depends on the record, the type of access sought and the statutory conditions.

Official legislation and RTI resources

• Right to Information Act, 2005 - India Code (check the latest consolidated text and amendments).
• Right to Information portal - Government of India.
• RTI Online - Central Government applications and first appeals.
• Central Information Commission.

The RTI Act operates together with applicable rules and amendments. State public authorities may have separate RTI portals and fee rules. This explanation is general legal information and does not replace the statutory text.