Right to Information Wiki
Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur

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

no way to compare when less than two revisions

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—cases:chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc [2026/04/23 00:47] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur,Supreme Court of India RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,§18,§19,complaint,appeal,Commission powers)&metatag-description=(Section 18 [complaint] and Section 19 [appeal] operate in different fields; Commission cannot order disclosure in a §18 complaint.)}}
 +
 +====== Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur ======
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Supreme Court of India** · 2011-12-12 · (2011) 15 SCC 1 · **★ Landmark**
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +//§18 complaint ≠ §19 appeal. Commission cannot direct disclosure of information under §18; only §19 permits that.//
 +
 +===== Case details =====
 +
 +^ Court | Supreme Court of India |
 +^ Decided | 2011-12-12 |
 +^ Citation | (2011) 15 SCC 1 |
 +^ Bench | Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai |
 +^ Petitioner | Chief Information Commissioner |
 +^ Respondent | State of Manipur & Anr. |
 +^ RTI Act sections | §18, §19 |
 +^ Outcome | Partly allowed |
 +
 +===== Outcome =====
 +
 +Section 18 (complaint) and Section 19 (appeal) operate in different fields; Commission cannot order disclosure in a §18 complaint.
 +
 +===== Ratio decidendi =====
 +
 +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.
 +
 +===== Keywords =====
 +
 +§18, §19, complaint, appeal, Commission powers
 +
 +===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
 +
 +//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
 +
 +  * [[/cases/cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014|§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide]] (CIC 2014)
 +  * [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
 +  * [[/cases/sc-delay-condonation-second-appeal-2022|Condonation of delay in §19(3) Second Appeal]] (SC 2022)
 +  * [[/cases/cic-rti-partial-information-earlier-2020|Partial information provided — fresh RTI for balance — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
 +  * [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=SC|All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=18|All RTI cases turning on §18]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=19|All RTI cases turning on §19]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?landmark=1|All landmark rulings]]
 +  * [[:cases:search|Full case-law search]]
 +  * [[:cases|Case-Law Database — overview]]
 +  * [[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
 +  * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
 +  * [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138115879/|External reported text →]]
 +
 +<WRAP center round alert 95%>
 +**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.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +
 +
 +//Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.//
 +
 +{{tag>case-law court-sc section-18 section-19 landmark}}