Right to Information Wiki
§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide

§18 complaint: procedural/non-appointment/non-compliance. §19 appeal: substantive denial of information. §18 complaint: procedural grievance.

no way to compare when less than two revisions

Differences

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


—cases:cic-rti-complaint-before-second-appeal-2014 [2026/05/03 08:28] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide,Central Information Commission (Full Bench) RTI,RTI §18,RTI §19,§18,§19,complaint vs appeal,CIC Full Bench)&metatag-description=(§18 complaint: procedural/non-appointment/non-compliance. §19 appeal: substantive denial of information. §18 complaint: procedural grievance.)}}
 +
 +====== §18 complaint vs §19 appeal — jurisdictional divide ======
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Central Information Commission (Full Bench)** · 2014-01-01 · Citation awaited
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +//§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.//
 +
 +  * [[/cases/chief-information-commissioner-v-state-of-manipur-2011-sc|Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur]] (SC 2011)
 +  * [[/cases/sic-karnataka-police-records-2021|Police complaint records — Karnataka SIC]] (SIC-KA 2021)
 +  * [[/cases/bombay-hc-pio-deemed-refusal-2014|PIO silence as deemed refusal — Bombay HC]] (HC-BOM 2014)
 +  * [[/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)
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?court=CIC|All Central Information Commission (Full Bench) 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]]
 +  * [[: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]]
 +
 +<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-cic section-18 section-19}}