Appeals & Complaints — Sections 18 & 19

Landmark Case: Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) 15 SCC 1 — The Supreme Court distinguished the complaint procedure under Section 18 from the appeal procedure under Section 19, holding that the Commission cannot order disclosure under Section 18 — only under Section 19 — and that complaints are appropriate for procedural lapses while appeals are for substantive denials.

Two Routes to the Information Commission

When a citizen is aggrieved by a PIO’s decision, the RTI Act provides two routes: a complaint under Section 18 and an appeal under Section 19. They serve different purposes and follow different procedures. Mixing them up is a common exam mistake.

An appeal is the standard remedy when the PIO has made a specific decision — either refusing information or giving incomplete information. A complaint is used for systemic problems — no PIO appointed, excessive fees, misleading information given, or where the Commission itself has direct jurisdiction.

The Two-Tier Appeal Structure — Section 19

graph TD
    A["PIO Decision\nor Deemed Refusal\nafter 30 days"] --> B["FIRST APPEAL\nSection 19(1)\nWithin 30 days\nTo First Appellate Authority\n(Senior officer in same body)"]

    B --> C{"FAA Decision\nSection 19(6)\nWithin 30 days\n(max 45 days with reasons)"}

    C -->|Allows appeal| D["Information\ndisclosed"]
    C -->|Rejects appeal| E["SECOND APPEAL\nSection 19(3)\nWithin 90 days\nTo Information Commission\nCIC or SIC"]

    E --> F["Commission hearing\nSections 18 19 20"]

    F -->|Orders disclosure| G["Information + possible\ncompensation\nSection 19(8)(b)"]
    F -->|Upholds rejection| H["Writ petition\nHigh Court\nArticle 226"]
    F -->|PIO at fault| I["Penalty\nSection 20\nRs. 250/day\nmax Rs. 25,000"]

    style D fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#15803d
    style G fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#15803d
    style H fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#b45309
    style I fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#b91c1c

First Appeal — Section 19(1)

Second Appeal — Section 19(3)

The Crucial Burden of Proof — Section 19(5)

“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 the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”

This reverses the ordinary burden. In RTI appeals, the PIO must prove the refusal was justified — the citizen does not have to prove she deserved the information.

Complaint Procedure — Section 18

A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission (without going through first and second appeal) when:

1. No PIO has been appointed in the public authority.
2. The applicant was refused the right to file an RTI application.
3. No information was provided within the time limit.
4. An excessive fee was charged.
5. Information given was incomplete, false, or misleading.
6. Any other matter relating to obtaining information.

Complaint vs Appeal — Key Differences

Sample Problem (KSLU-style)

Problem: Sunita files an RTI application to a State Government department. The PIO refuses the application on day 25, citing Section 8(1)(j) personal information. Sunita believes the information is public in nature. She is also told there is no First Appellate Authority. What should Sunita do?

Answer (IRAC):

• Issue: What are Sunita’s remedies when the PIO refuses her RTI application and no First Appellate Authority has been designated?
• Rule: Under Section 19(1), the First Appeal goes to a senior officer of the public authority within 30 days of the PIO’s order. However, Section 18 allows a complaint to be filed directly with the State Information Commission when systemic non-compliance exists — including the absence of a properly designated appellate authority. Section 19(5) places the burden on the PIO to prove the refusal under Section 8(1)(j) was justified.
• Analysis: Sunita has two simultaneous options. First, she should file a First Appeal with the senior-most available officer of the public authority within 30 days, even in the absence of a formally designated FAA, as any senior officer may perform this function. Second, because no FAA has been designated, Sunita may also file a complaint under Section 18 directly with the State Information Commission, citing the systemic failure of non-designation of the FAA. The Commission can order the public authority to designate an FAA and also inquire into the substantive refusal.
• Conclusion: Sunita should file both a First Appeal and a complaint under Section 18 with the State Information Commission. The burden at the Commission will be on the PIO to prove that the refused information genuinely falls under Section 8(1)(j).