Table of Contents
§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide
Central Information Commission (Full Bench) · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
§18 complaint: procedural grievance. §19 appeal: substantive denial. Direct §18 for disclosure = not maintainable.
Case details
| Court | Central Information Commission (Full Bench) |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2014-01-01 |
| Citation | Citation awaited |
| Petitioner | RTI applicants |
| Respondent | various |
| RTI Act sections | §18, §19 |
| Outcome | Guidance / other |
Outcome
§18 complaint: procedural/non-appointment/non-compliance. §19 appeal: substantive denial of information.
Ratio decidendi
The CIC Full Bench reaffirmed the CIC v. Manipur (SC 2011) divide: §18 complaints address procedural failures (no PIO appointed, no response even after 30 days), while §19 appeals address substantive refusal. A §18 complaint cannot be used to secure disclosure; that is the §19 path.
Keywords
§18, §19, complaint vs appeal, CIC Full Bench
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.
- Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC (SIC-KA 2021)
- PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC (HC-BOM 2014)
- Whistleblower complaint anonymity — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2019)
Related
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 · last reviewed 21 April 2026.
Discussion