Complaint (s. 18) distinguished from Appeal (s. 19) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Complaint (s. 18) distinguished from Appeal (s. 19)

Two doors lead to the Information Commission, and choosing the wrong one costs a citizen his remedy. One door — the complaint — is for when the system broke down and never even processed you. The other — the appeal — is for when it processed you and got it wrong. Examiners love this distinction because candidates blur the two, and a half-remembered version loses marks.

Two remedies, not two names for one

A s. 18 complaint and a s. 19 appeal are different remedies with different purposes. State the contrast precisely.

A. What each one attacks

A complaint (s. 18) is an inquiry into the conduct of the public authority — used where the machinery failed: no PIO was appointed, the officer refused to receive the application, an unreasonable fee was charged. An appeal (s. 19) challenges the substance of a decision already made by the PIO — a refusal, a partial disclosure, an exemption wrongly claimed.

B. The forum and the tiers

A complaint goes straight to the Information Commission — there is no first tier. An appeal is two-tiered: first to the FAA inside the authority, then (second appeal) to the Commission.

C. The decisive difference — the power to order disclosure

This is the point that decides the problems. On a complaint, the Commission cannot direct disclosure of the information; it can inquire and penalise, but not order the record released. On an appeal, it can order disclosure and can award compensation (s. 19(8)). So a citizen who actually wants the information must ultimately be on the appeal track.

D. Overlap — the penalty

One power is shared: the s. 20 penalty on a defaulting PIO can be imposed while deciding either a complaint or an appeal (s. 20(1) says “at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal”). Compensation, by contrast, is appeal-only (s. 19(8)(b)).

Section 18(1), RTI Act, 2005: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person — (a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer… (b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act…”

In Simple Terms: A complaint is for a broken system (no PIO, refusal to receive you) and goes straight to the Commission, but it cannot get you the information. An appeal is for a wrong decision, runs in two tiers (FAA then Commission), and can order disclosure and compensation. The penalty on the PIO can come through either route; only the appeal gets you the record and the money.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the complaint that should have been an appeal

Facts. X is refused information by the PIO. Skipping the FAA, he files a complaint to the Commission. The Commission rejects the complaint and directs him to the First Appellate Authority. Is the direction correct?

Rule. ss. 18 and 19: a refusal of information is a decision, challengeable by appeal; a complaint cannot order disclosure (Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, 2011).

Apply. Decoy: “the Commission rejected it, so X has lost.” Not so. X wants the information, and the disclosure remedy lies in the appeal, which begins with the FAA. The Commission rightly redirected him to the first appeal.

Conclusion. The direction is correct; X’s proper route is the first appeal to the FAA, then, if needed, a second appeal.

flowchart TD
    A["Grievance under the Act"]
    A --> B{"System broke down<br/>OR wrong decision?"}
    B -->|"Broke down (no PIO, refused to receive)"| C["COMPLAINT (s. 18)<br/>straight to Commission"]
    B -->|"Wrong decision (refusal, partial)"| D["APPEAL (s. 19)<br/>FAA then Commission"]
    C --> E["Inquire + penalise (s. 20) —<br/>but CANNOT order disclosure"]
    D --> F["CAN order disclosure + compensation (s. 19(8)) + penalty"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,D,E,F box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B q;

Case Laws

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) — the leading authority: complaint (s. 18) and appeal (s. 19) are separate remedies; the Commission cannot grant the disclosure relief of an appeal on a mere complaint.

📄 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