Table of Contents
Section 23 — Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts
Quick Reply: Section 23 says no civil court may entertain a suit or proceeding about an order under the RTI Act — the Act's own ladder (first appeal → Commission) is the statutory route. It does not touch the High Courts' writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or the Supreme Court's under Article 32: writs against Commission orders are entertained routinely. The bar is against *civil suits*, not constitutional review.
The section, verbatim
No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.
Two limbs: (1) no court entertains proceedings in respect of orders under the Act; (2) such orders are challenged only by way of appeal under the Act — the §19 ladder.
What is barred — and what is not
| Route | Barred by §23? |
| Civil suit against a PIO's refusal | Yes — the refusal is an order under the Act; the route is §19 |
| Suit to compel information directly | Yes |
| First appeal (§19(1)) / second appeal (§19(3)) | No — the statutory route itself |
| §18 complaint to the Commission | No |
| Writ petition under Article 226/32 against a Commission order | No — writ jurisdiction is constitutional, outside the bar; routinely exercised |
| Challenge to the *rules* (not orders) under the Act | Not an “order under the Act” — ordinary judicial review lies |
Why the bar exists
The Act was designed as a self-contained, fast, cheap remedy: a civil suit's timelines and costs would defeat it. §23 funnels disputes into the ladder the Act already funds — FAA, then Information Commission — with §20 penalties and §19(8) powers the civil courts never had.
The practical sequence
1. **Reply unsatisfactory** → first appeal to the FAA (§19(1)), free, 30 days. 2. **FAA fails** → second appeal to the Commission (§19(3)), within 90 days. 3. **Commission's order fails you** → writ under **Article 226** before the High Court (for central authorities, ordinarily the Delhi High Court; for state authorities, the High Court of that state). 4. Skipping the ladder to run to a civil court gets a threshold dismissal — §23 is pleaded first. 5. Drafting: [[:templates:first-appeal|First Appeal template]] · [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html|First Appeal Generator]].
FAQs
Can I sue the PIO for damages instead of appealing?
Not for the refusal itself — §23 bars it; the appeal ladder is the route. A separate tort claim (defamation, say) is a different cause of action, but it will not get you the information.
Is there a further appeal inside the Act after the Commission?
No — the Commission is the statutory apex. After it, the writ route under Article 226 (and, leave granted, special leave under Article 136).
Does the bar apply to service matters of PIOs?
No — §23 covers orders under this Act, not the officer's service disputes.
The Commission is silent for months — court now?
First move the Commission's registry for early hearing; writ courts have entertained delay complaints against Commissions — but exhaust the record first.
Related
Sources
- Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 23; Constitution of India, Articles 32, 136, 226.
- Settled High Court practice entertaining writs against Information Commission orders.
Last reviewed on: 27 August 2026. Unverifiable named-case reference dropped; the barred-vs-not-barred table and the practical writ sequence added.