Powers and functions of the Information Commissions; complaints (s. 18) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Powers and functions of the Information Commissions; complaints (s. 18)

An RTI activist is murdered for the information he was chasing. The grief is real — but the Commission’s powers are not a wish-list. It can inquire, it can summon files, it can penalise a defaulting PIO. What it cannot do on a s. 18 complaint is order the whole world of information to be handed over as a memorial. Knowing the exact boundary of the Commission’s powers is what this topic tests.

The complaint jurisdiction and its civil-court teeth

Section 18 gives the Information Commission its complaint jurisdiction and equips it with real investigative power.

A. When a complaint lies (s. 18(1))

It is the duty of the Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who:

could not submit a request because no PIO/APIO was appointed, or the officer refused to receive the application or the appeal;
was refused access to information;
was not given a response within the time-limit;
was required to pay an unreasonable fee;
believes he was given incomplete, misleading or false information; or
has any other grievance relating to obtaining records under the Act.

B. Power to inquire; civil-court powers (s. 18(2)–(3))

Where the Commission is satisfied there are reasonable grounds, it may initiate an inquiry. While inquiring, it has the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of: summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath; requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit; requisitioning any public record from any court or office; and issuing summonses for the examination of witnesses or documents (s. 18(3)).

C. What s. 18 cannot do

Here is the limit that decides the problems: a s. 18 complaint is an inquiry into the public authority’s conduct, not an appeal against a refusal — so the Commission on a complaint cannot direct that the information be disclosed. That disclosure power belongs to the appellate jurisdiction under s. 19 (see Topics 6 and 7). This was settled in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011).

Section 18(3), RTI Act, 2005: “The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely — (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons…; (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning any public record…; (e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents…”

In Simple Terms: On a complaint the Commission can investigate like a civil court — summon people, demand documents, take evidence on oath. But a complaint only checks how the PIO behaved; it cannot itself order the information to be released. To get the information, you use the appeal route in s. 19.

D. Monitoring and reporting — the Commission’s oversight duty (s. 25)

Beyond deciding individual complaints and appeals, the Commission is the standing watchdog of the Act. Section 25 casts a monitoring-and-reporting duty on it:

Annual report (s. 25(1)–(3)). As soon as practicable after each year, the Commission prepares a report on the implementation of the Act and lays it before Parliament (the CIC) or the State Legislature (the SIC). The report must state, for the year: the number of requests made to each public authority; the number of refusals, with the sections relied on; the number of appeals and complaints and their disposal; particulars of any disciplinary action taken; the fees collected; and recommendations for reform. Each Ministry/public authority must supply the Commission the material it needs to compile this report (s. 25(2)).
Power to recommend reforms (s. 25(5)). If it appears that a public authority does not conform to the letter or spirit of the Act, the Commission may recommend to that authority the steps it ought to take to promote such conformity — better record-keeping, training of officials, wider suo-motu disclosure under s. 4, and the like.

In Simple Terms: Section 25 turns the Commission from a mere umpire of disputes into a systemic monitor — every year it audits how the whole machinery is working, reports to the legislature, and can tell a lagging department how to mend its ways. It is a recommendatory power, not a coercive one, but it is the Act’s chief engine of institutional improvement.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the murdered activist’s information

Facts. An RTI activist is murdered for seeking corruption records. On a complaint, his family asks the Commission to order disclosure of all the information he had sought.

Rule. s. 18: the Commission may inquire and use civil-court powers, but it cannot on a complaint order disclosure — that is the s. 19 appellate power (Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, 2011).

Apply. Decoy: the tragedy invites a sweeping order. But the Commission’s powers are fixed by statute: on a s. 18 complaint it can inquire into the refusal and penalise the PIO, yet the direction to disclose must come through a s. 19 appeal, decided item by item against the s. 8 exemptions.

Conclusion. The Commission cannot order wholesale disclosure on the complaint; the proper route to the records is a second appeal under s. 19.

flowchart TD
    A["Complaint to the Commission (s. 18)"]
    A --> B["Grounds: no PIO · refused access ·<br/>no timely reply · unreasonable fee · false/incomplete info"]
    A --> C["Reasonable grounds? Commission initiates inquiry (s. 18(2))"]
    C --> D["Civil-court powers (s. 18(3)):<br/>summon · discovery · evidence on oath · requisition records"]
    C --> E["LIMIT: cannot order disclosure —<br/>that is the s. 19 appellate power"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E box;

Case Laws

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) — a s. 18 complaint and a s. 19 appeal are distinct; the disclosure remedy lies in appeal, not complaint; s. 18 is an inquiry into the authority’s conduct.

📄 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