Distinguish the principle of ‘severability’ from the concept of ‘public interest override’ as applied under the RTI Act, 2005. Clarify their unique features in balancing disclosure with exemptions.

Severability allows disclosure of non-exempt parts by removing exempt portions (Section 10). Public interest override mandates disclosure of exempt information if public interest outweighs harm (Section 8(2)). Severability is a partial disclosure mechanism based on physical/logical separation. Public interest override is a full disclosure mechanism based on a balancing test. Severability maximizes *possible* disclosure within exemption limits. Public interest override prioritizes public good *over* exemption limits in specific cases. Severability is about redaction. Public interest override is about value judgment.

Right to Information Act 2005. Transparency. Exemptions (Sections 8 & 9). Severability (Section 10). Public Interest. Balancing Test. Disclosure. Non-disclosure.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a landmark legislation promoting transparency and accountability in governance. While upholding the citizen’s right to access information, the Act also acknowledges the necessity for certain exemptions to protect sensitive interests. To navigate the tension between disclosure and exemption, the Act incorporates mechanisms that facilitate responsible information sharing. Among these, the principle of ‘severability’ and the concept of ‘public interest override’ are distinct tools used to balance these competing interests, each operating under different principles and objectives.

Severability, as enshrined in Section 10 of the RTI Act, addresses situations where a part of the requested record contains information that is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8 or 9, but another part is not. The principle mandates that, if the non-exempt part can be reasonably severed from the exempt part, the public authority shall provide access only to the non-exempt part. This ensures that legitimate access to information is not denied simply because it is contained within a document that also holds some restricted information. The mechanism involves redacting, removing, or blacking out the exempt portions while providing the remaining accessible information. The focus of severability is on maximizing disclosure of information that *is* permissible, by surgically removing the portions that *are not*. It is a technical process of separating accessible information from inaccessible information within the same document or record. Public interest override, most explicitly mentioned in Section 8(2) and implied in provisos to certain exemptions, operates on a fundamentally different premise. It allows for the disclosure of information that *otherwise* falls under one of the exempted categories (typically Section 8(1) exemptions), if the public interest in disclosing such information is deemed to outweigh the harm protected by the exemption. This is not about separating exempt from non-exempt parts, but about making a value judgment that the larger public good served by disclosing the information overrides the specific harm (e.g., national security, privacy, commercial confidence) that the exemption is designed to prevent. Section 8(2) specifically states that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Furthermore, it elaborates on the balancing test for Section 8(1) exemptions (except (a) and (b) in some interpretations, though case law has broadened this) requiring disclosure if public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. The application of public interest override involves a discretionary balancing exercise performed by the Public Information Officer or the appellate authorities. It is a mechanism to ensure that exemptions do not become absolute barriers when the societal benefit from disclosure is paramount. In essence, severability is about disclosing parts that are *not* exempt, while public interest override is about disclosing information that *is* exempt but where the public good demands its revelation. Severability results in partial disclosure of a mixed record. Public interest override can result in full disclosure of an otherwise exempt record. Their features are unique: Severability is a rule for handling mixed records by separation; Public interest override is a rule for overriding an exemption based on a proportionality test favoring public good.

In conclusion, severability and public interest override are distinct yet vital tools within the RTI Act for navigating the disclosure-exemption balance. Severability facilitates the release of non-exempt information within a record by allowing for the removal of exempt portions, thereby ensuring maximum permissible transparency. Public interest override, conversely, allows for the disclosure of otherwise exempt information when the public good clearly outweighs the potential harm from disclosure, acting as a crucial safeguard against unnecessary secrecy. While severability focuses on the physical or logical separation of information, public interest override focuses on a value-based balancing test. Together, they contribute significantly to realizing the Act’s objective of informed citizenry and transparent governance while respecting necessary confidentiality.