Appeals — First Appellate Authority and Second Appeal (s. 19) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Appeals — First Appellate Authority and Second Appeal (s. 19)

The RTI appeal is a two-rung ladder, and the genius is that the second rung leaves the building. Your first appeal is heard by a senior officer inside the same department — quick, in-house, cheap. But if that fails, your second appeal escapes the department entirely and lands before the independent Information Commission, whose word is binding. That escape from the department is what makes the remedy real.

The two-tier appeal — climb one rung at a time

Section 19 builds the appeal in two tiers. You cannot skip the first to reach the second.

A. First appeal — to the First Appellate Authority (s. 19(1))

Any person who does not get a decision within the time-limit, or is aggrieved by the PIO’s decision, may appeal within thirty days to an officer senior in rank to the PIO in the same public authority — the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA may admit a late appeal if satisfied there was sufficient cause for the delay. The FAA must decide the appeal within thirty days of receipt, extendable, for reasons recorded in writing, to a maximum of forty-five days (s. 19(6)).

B. Second appeal — to the Information Commission (s. 19(3))

A person still aggrieved by the FAA’s decision (or by the FAA’s failure to decide in time) may file a second appeal within ninety days of the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received — to the Central or State Information Commission. The Commission may admit a late second appeal for sufficient cause.

C. Burden of proof and third-party appeals (ss. 19(5), 19(2))

In any appeal against a refusal, the burden of proving that the refusal was justified lies on the PIO who refused (s. 19(5)) — the citizen does not have to prove his entitlement; the officer must justify his denial. Where a third party’s information is involved, that third party gets a hearing and a right of appeal (s. 19(2)).

D. The Commission’s powers on second appeal (s. 19(8))

Deciding a second appeal, the Commission may:

require the public authority to take steps to comply — provide the information in a particular form, appoint a PIO, publish information, make changes to records management, or enhance training (s. 19(8)(a));
require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered (s. 19(8)(b));
impose penalties under s. 20 (s. 19(8)(c)); and
reject the appeal (s. 19(8)(d)).

The Commission’s decision is binding (s. 19(7)), and it must give the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard (s. 19(10)). Crucially, the power to order disclosure and the power to award compensation live here, in the appeal — not in the s. 18 complaint.

Section 19(1), RTI Act, 2005: “Any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer… in each public authority.”

Section 19(5), RTI Act, 2005: “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”

In Simple Terms: If the PIO fails you, appeal within 30 days to a senior officer in the same department (the FAA), who must decide in 30 days (max 45). Still unhappy? Second appeal within 90 days to the independent Information Commission. The officer, not you, must prove the refusal was right. The Commission can order the information released, make the authority compensate you, and penalise the PIO — and its decision is binding.

💡 EXAM TIP — get the three time-numbers exactly right

The trap. Candidates blur the numbers — writing “60 days” for the first appeal, or forgetting the FAA’s own deadline — and lose the easy marks a timeline question is built to give.

What to write. First appeal: 30 days to file; FAA decides in 30 days, extendable to 45. Second appeal: 90 days to file, to the Information Commission. Add s. 19(5): the burden of proof is on the PIO.

Why it scores. The examiner sets s. 19 precisely to test whether you can reproduce the ladder and its clock accurately; exact numbers plus the burden-of-proof rule is the difference between a pass and a top answer.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — the First Appellate Authority is NOT the Information Commission

The FAA is an officer inside the public authority, merely senior to the PIO; the first appeal stays in-house. The Information Commission is the independent, external body that hears the second appeal. Writing “appeal to the Information Commission” for the first appeal skips a whole rung and mis-states the scheme.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the PIO who becomes his own appellate authority

Facts. A PIO rejects an application. He is then, by rotation, the officer who sits as First Appellate Authority on that very case. May he decide his own appeal?

Rule. s. 19(1) requires the FAA to be an officer senior in rank to the PIO; and the maxim nemo judex in causa sua [no one may be a judge in his own cause] bars a person from hearing an appeal against his own order.

Apply. Decoy: “he is now the appellate authority, so he is entitled to decide.” But natural justice forbids the maker of the order from sitting in appeal over it; the appeal must go to a different officer senior to the PIO.

Conclusion. He cannot decide the appeal against his own rejection; another senior officer must hear it.

flowchart TD
    A["PIO refuses / delays / gives incomplete info"]
    A --> B["First appeal within 30 days<br/>to FAA (senior to PIO, same authority) — s. 19(1)"]
    B --> C["FAA decides in 30 days (max 45) — s. 19(6)"]
    C --> D{"Still aggrieved?"}
    D -->|"Yes"| E["Second appeal within 90 days<br/>to CIC/SIC — s. 19(3)"]
    E --> F["Commission (s. 19(8)): order disclosure · compensate ·<br/>penalise PIO · reject — decision binding (s. 19(7))"]
    D -->|"No"| G["Information supplied — matter closed"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,E,F,G box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class D q;

Case Laws

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) — the disclosure remedy and the appellate power lie in s. 19; a complaint under s. 18 is a distinct route.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — the appeal machinery exists to make access swift and enforceable within the Act’s framework.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics