Section 18 Complaint vs Section 19 Second Appeal RTI

Section 18(1) of the RTI Act lists six exhaustive grounds. A complaint is the right remedy when:

1. No PIO has been appointed in a public authority (Section 18(1)(a) read with Section 5).
2. The PIO / APIO has refused to accept your RTI application for any reason whatsoever (Section 18(1)(a)).
3. The PIO has refused access to information without invoking a valid Section 8 / 9 / 11 ground (Section 18(1)(b)).
4. The PIO has not responded within the time limit (Section 18(1)©) - though most Commissions prefer that this ground be routed through Sections 19(1) → 19(3).
5. The fee demanded is unreasonable or beyond the prescribed Rule 4 rate (Section 18(1)(d)).
6. The information supplied is incomplete, misleading, or false (Section 18(1)(e)).
7. Any other matter relating to requesting / obtaining information - including Section 4(1) suo-motu disclosure failures (Section 18(1)(f)).

Most CICs and SICs require that you first attempt the Section 19(1) first appeal for grounds (b) and ©, leaving Section 18 as the proper route for grounds (a), (d), (e), and (f). This is a practice norm, not a statutory requirement, but it accelerates disposal.

A Section 19(3) second appeal is the right remedy when:

1. You filed a Section 19(1) first appeal within 30 days of the PIO's order (or deemed refusal under Section 7(2)).
2. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) has either rejected the appeal, modified it unfavourably, or failed to respond within 30 days (or 45 days with extension under Section 19(6)).
3. You file the second appeal within 90 days under Section 19(3).
4. Your goal is to get the information disclosed and (often) to also press for Section 20 penalty / Section 19(8)(b) compensation.

Filing fee at the Commission level is zero (Central rule). Most state SIC fee rules also follow zero, with a few exceptions; check your state.

Yes. The Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) and the CIC's full-bench in M.A. Shah v. CPIO, AIIMS (CIC, 2009) confirmed that Sections 18 and 19 are independent remedies. When both grounds apply (e.g. the PIO refused to accept the application and the information is being withheld), file both. The Commission may consolidate hearings to save time.

The CIC's Complaint Guidelines (under Rules 8 and 9 of the RTI Rules, 2012) also state that during scrutiny, if a complaint includes both a request for information and a Section 20 penalty prayer, and if a Section 19(1) first appeal had been filed earlier, the matter is registered as a Second Appeal rather than a complaint. This is a practical reading: it keeps the disclosure power of Section 19(8) alive.

The single biggest difference is the very first row. A complaint cannot get you the information; only a second appeal can. That is why a citizen whose primary goal is the file must use Section 19(3) - even if the PIO has also misbehaved, the Section 18 penalty pathway is supplementary, not primary.

Before the [Central / State] Information Commission

Complaint No. _______ of _______
(under Section 18(1)(__) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
read with Rules 8 and 9 of the RTI Rules, 2012)

Complainant: [Full name, Indian residential address, email, phone]

Respondent: The Public Information Officer,
    [Public authority name, address].

Subject: Complaint against the [public authority] for [tick relevant ground]:
  ( ) refusal to accept RTI application - Section 18(1)(a)
  ( ) refusal to grant access - Section 18(1)(b)
  ( ) non-response within statutory time limit - Section 18(1)(c)
  ( ) demanding unreasonable fee - Section 18(1)(d)
  ( ) supplying incomplete / misleading / false information - Section 18(1)(e)
  ( ) other misconduct relating to access - Section 18(1)(f)

FACTS
1. On [date], the complainant submitted an RTI application
 (Annexure A) to the PIO of [public authority] under Section 6(1)
 of the RTI Act, 2005, with the prescribed Rs 10 fee paid by IPO
 no. [X] (Annexure B).
2. [Narrate what the PIO did or failed to do, with dates and
 document references; keep it factual and brief.]

GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT
3. The conduct of the PIO violates Section [provision] of the RTI Act,
 2005.
4. The complainant is therefore entitled to invoke Section 18(1)(__)
 of the RTI Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the RTI Rules, 2012.

PRAYER
The Hon'ble Commission is most respectfully prayed to:
(a) inquire into the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005;
(b) impose penalty under Section 20(1) on the erring PIO at the rate
  of Rs 250 per day, subject to a maximum of Rs 25,000;
(c) recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under Section 20(2);
(d) award compensation under Section 19(8)(b) for the loss / detriment
  suffered by the complainant; and
(e) pass such other and further orders as the Commission may deem
  fit in the facts of the case.

Date:             [Signature of complainant]
Place:              [Name of complainant]

ENCLOSURES (each authenticated and verified by the complainant):
  1. Copy of the RTI application (Annexure A).
  2. Proof of dispatch / fee payment (Annexure B).
  3. Copy of any reply received (Annexure C).
  4. Copy of any first-appeal order received (Annexure D, if any).
  5. Index of documents.
  6. Copy of complainant's photo ID.

I, [name], the complainant above-named, do hereby verify that the
contents of paragraphs 1 to 4 above are true to my own knowledge and
belief, and that no part of it is false, and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.
                [Signature of complainant]

(Use the full appeal format from the Second Appeal guide. The prayer paragraph is what most agents need first.)

PRAYER
The Hon'ble Commission is most respectfully prayed to:

(a) ALLOW the present second appeal under Section 19(3) of the
  RTI Act, 2005;

(b) DIRECT the respondent PIO under Section 19(8)(a) to furnish, free
  of cost, the complete information sought in the RTI application
  dated [date], and to publish such information proactively under
  Section 4(1)(b) where applicable;

(c) IMPOSE penalty under Section 20(1) on the PIO at Rs 250 per day
  of delay, subject to the statutory maximum of Rs 25,000;

(d) RECOMMEND disciplinary action under Section 20(2) against the PIO
  and the FAA for the malafide handling of the appellant's request;

(e) AWARD compensation under Section 19(8)(b) for the detriment and
  loss of time and resources suffered by the appellant; and

(f) PASS such other and further orders as the Commission may deem
  fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Date:             [Signature of appellant]
Place:              [Name of appellant]

The CIC's RTI Rules 2012 Rule 8/9 guidelines list the same core enclosures for both:

1. The complaint / second appeal duly signed and verified.
2. Copy of the RTI application (and proof of dispatch).
3. Copy of the PIO's reply, if any.
4. Copy of the first-appeal order (if a first appeal was filed).
5. Copies of supporting documents.
6. Index of all enclosures.
7. Photo ID of the applicant / complainant.
8. All documents must be legible and in English / Hindi, with translations attached for any other-language document.

1. Filing a Section 18 complaint to “get the file” - and then being told the Commission cannot order disclosure under Section 18. Use Section 19(3) for disclosure, full stop.
2. Skipping the Section 19(1) first appeal for a non-response or refusal - most Commissions return such complaints with a direction to first appeal.
3. Forgetting the prescribed verification clause at the end of the complaint / appeal - the document is treated as a private affidavit; without verification it is rejected at scrutiny.
4. Missing the 90-day limitation for second appeals - file an application for condonation of delay under Section 19(3) proviso with a sworn affidavit explaining the delay.
5. Stuffing both prayers into one document without clearly separating them - prefer two parallel filings, cross-referenced.

File the Section 19(3) second appeal. Section 19(8)(a) gives the Commission the power to order disclosure, and Section 20(1) (read with the second appeal's prayer) gives it the power to impose the same Rs 25,000 penalty that a Section 18 complaint would. So a single second appeal achieves both. Add a parallel Section 18 complaint only if the PIO's misconduct (e.g. refusal to accept the application) is independent of the disclosure issue.

This is the textbook Section 18(1)(a) ground. File a Section 18 complaint directly with the relevant Information Commission - there is no first-appeal requirement for refusal-to-accept. The Commission has held in M.A. Shah v. CPIO, AIIMS (CIC, 2009) that the right to receive an application is anterior to the disclosure obligation; refusal at the counter is itself the wrong.

Most Commissions require you to file a Section 19(1) first appeal for non-response - that is the deemed-refusal route under Section 7(2). After the FAA's silence or rejection, file the Section 19(3) second appeal. A direct Section 18(1)© complaint for non-response is technically maintainable but is usually returned by the Commission with a direction to first-appeal route. Save time: file the first appeal.

The Act does not prescribe a statutory limit for Section 18 complaints. However, the CIC and most SICs apply a reasonable-time test of around one year from the wrong; the appellant must explain any longer delay. Section 19(3), in contrast, has a hard 90-day limit with statutory delay-condonation under the proviso.

Yes - they are independent remedies under CIC v. State of Manipur (2011) 15 SCC 1. Cross-reference the two filings in each prayer paragraph so the Commission can consolidate hearings.

Yes - both can be filed at cic.gov.in for Central public authorities; many SICs accept online filing too. Hard-copy filing by Speed Post (with AD) remains the safest paper trail; it is also still the faster route at most state SICs.

It cannot give you the information itself. The Commission has held repeatedly (M.A. Shah v. CPIO, AIIMS, CIC, 2009; State of UP v. Raj Narain, SC, 1975 reasoning) that the disclosure power flows from Section 19(8)(a), which is engaged only in an appeal, not a complaint. So a Section 18 complaint will earn you a penalty order and possibly compensation - but never the file itself.

1. Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 19, 20. DoPT.
2. RTI Rules, 2012 - Rules 8 and 9 (complaint and appeal procedure). DoPT.
3. Supreme Court of India - Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1.
4. Central Information Commission - M.A. Shah v. CPIO, AIIMS (CIC, 2009); CIC Practice Directions on Complaints, Rules 8 and 9.
5. DoPT, Guide on the RTI Act, 2005 (August 2013, updated).
6. For online filing of complaints / appeals: cic.gov.in (Central) and state RTI portals directory (state SICs).

Want a Section 18 complaint or Section 19(3) second appeal auto-generated with the right facts, the right grounds, and the right prayer paragraph? The AI RTI Drafter picks the correct route from your facts and gives you a fully formatted document - free, no signup.

• Guide hub - Right to Information for citizens
• Second Appeal under Section 19(3)
• Second Appeal to CIC - full procedure
• First Appeal under Section 19(1)
• First Appellate Authority - procedure deep-dive
• Section 20 penalty and Section 19(8)(b) compensation
• Who can file RTI: citizen, NRI, OCI, company, NGO

Last reviewed: 9 May 2026 - RTI Wiki editorial team.