Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur

§18 complaint ≠ §19 appeal. Commission cannot direct disclosure of information under §18; only §19 permits that.

Section 18 (complaint) and Section 19 (appeal) operate in different fields; Commission cannot order disclosure in a §18 complaint.

The powers of the Commission under §18 (complaint) and §19 (appeal) are distinct. A complaint under §18 is meant for procedural grievances; substantive orders directing disclosure can be made only in an appeal under §19.

The ruling does not gut the complaint route — §18 has its own machinery, and the statute spells it out:

• §18(1) grounds: no PIO/APIO appointed or application refused at the counter; refusal of access; no response within the time limit; an unreasonable fee demand; incomplete, misleading or false information; and any other matter about requesting or obtaining records.
• §18(3) powers: while inquiring, the Commission has a civil court's powers — summoning and examining persons on oath, compelling documents, receiving affidavits, requisitioning public records.
• What the Commission cannot do in a §18 complaint, on this ruling, is pass the ultimate substantive order — direct the PIO to supply the information. That order belongs to the §19 appeal line: first appeal to the FAA, second appeal to the Commission under §19(3).

• Application refused at the counter / no PIO exists / total silence past the deadline — a §18 complaint works, and can be filed straight to the Commission.
• A refusal you want reversed, or information you want supplied — that is §19: first appeal, then second appeal. Say so expressly; asking the Commission to “order disclosure” in a complaint gets you a recommendation, not the record.
• *Hybrid is common: file the §19 first appeal the day silence ripens into deemed refusal; add a §18 complaint only if the office refuses to even accept appeals. ===== FAQs ===== ==== Can I skip the FAA and complain straight to the CIC? ==== Yes for §18 grounds (no PIO, refusal to accept, no reply) — that is the complaint's designed use. No for wanting the information itself: that runs through §19. ==== Does the 2019 Amendment change this ruling? ==== No. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 changed tenure and salary terms (ss.13, 16); the §18/§19 division this case settled is untouched. ==== What happens to my pending §18 complaint asking for disclosure? ==== The Commission typically converts the substance into a §19-style hearing where possible — but the clean route is to plead the appeal, not hope for conversion. ===== Keywords ===== §18, §19, complaint, appeal, Commission powers ===== Similar cases in the corpus ===== * §18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide (CIC 2014) * Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC (SIC-KA 2021) * Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal (SC 2022) * Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC (CIC 2020) * PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC (HC-BOM 2014) ===== Related ===== * All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus * All RTI cases turning on §18 * All RTI cases turning on §19 * All landmark rulings * Full case-law search * Case-Law Database — overview * PIO RTI Reply Guide * The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated * The RTI Playbook book * External reported text →

  Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.

  Editorial summary · ratio re-checked against the Act's ss.18–19 text on 27 August 2026; §18(1) grounds and §18(3) powers added from the statute.

  case-law, court-sc, section-18, section-19, landmark