Powers and functions of the Information Commissions

Right to Information · Unit III · Topic 9 of 16 · 6 min read

The complaint jurisdiction under section 18 and the civil court powers it carries, the remedial powers in section 19(8), monitoring and reporting under section 25, the difference between a complaint and an appeal as settled in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011), and the 2023 direction on hybrid hearings.

← All Right to Information topics Past papers

On this page

1. Complaints: section 18(1)
2. Powers in an inquiry: section 18(3) and (4)
3. Powers in deciding: section 19(7) and (8)
4. Monitoring and reporting: section 25
5. Complaint and appeal distinguished
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

The examinable core. The Commissions have four kinds of function: complaints (section 18), second appeals (section 19(3)), penalties (section 20) and monitoring (section 25). The April 2021 paper asked candidates to distinguish an appeal from a complaint and cite cases; the answer is Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur. Learn it well.

1. Complaints: section 18(1)

It is the duty of the Central or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person:

(a) who has been unable to submit a request because no PIO has been appointed, or because the APIO refused to accept his application or appeal for forwarding;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested;
(c) who has not been given a response within the time limit;
(d) who has been required to pay a fee he considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes he has been given incomplete, misleading or false information; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records.

Section 18(2): where the Commission is satisfied there are reasonable grounds, it may initiate an inquiry.

2. Powers in an inquiry: section 18(3) and (4)

While inquiring, the Commission has the same powers as a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of: summoning and enforcing attendance and compelling persons to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce documents; discovery and inspection of documents; receiving evidence on affidavit; requisitioning any public record from any court or office; issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and any other prescribed matter.

Section 18(4): notwithstanding anything in any other Act, the Commission may, during the inquiry of a complaint, examine any record to which the Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any ground. The Commission can therefore look at the very document said to be exempt before deciding whether it is.

3. Powers in deciding: section 19(7) and (8)

The Commission’s decision is binding, section 19(7). In its decision it may, under section 19(8):

(a) require the public authority to take steps to secure compliance with the Act, including providing access in a particular form, appointing a PIO, publishing certain information or categories of information, changing its practices on maintenance, management and destruction of records, enhancing training of its officials, and providing an annual report in compliance with section 4(1)(b);
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under the Act;
(d) reject the application.

Notice of the decision, including any right of appeal, goes to the complainant and the public authority, section 19(9). Procedure in appeals is as prescribed, section 19(10); for the Central Commission it is in rules 8 to 15 of the RTI Rules, 2012 (documents to accompany the appeal, return of defective appeals, hearing with seven clear days’ notice, appearance in person, through a representative or by video conference, and written orders under seal).

4. Monitoring and reporting: section 25

After each year, each Commission prepares a report on the implementation of the Act and sends it to the appropriate Government, section 25(1); ministries and departments must supply the data, section 25(2).
The report states the number of requests to each authority; refusals and the provisions relied on; appeals and their outcome; disciplinary action taken; charges collected; facts showing efforts to implement the spirit of the Act; and recommendations for reform, section 25(3).
The Government may lay the report before Parliament or the State Legislature, section 25(4).
If a public authority’s practice does not conform to the provisions or spirit of the Act, the Commission may give it a recommendation of the steps to be taken, section 25(5).

In Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 741, the Supreme Court directed the Commissions to use these powers to monitor compliance with section 4. In a later order in the same case, Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 915, it treated access to the Commissions as part of access to justice and directed the State Information Commissions to provide the option of hybrid (physical and virtual) hearings.

5. Complaint and appeal distinguished

In Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, 2011 INSC 842, (2011) 15 SCC 1, the applicant got no reply to his requests and complained to the State Commission under section 18, which directed the PIO to furnish the information. The Supreme Court held:

Sections 18 and 19 serve different purposes and lay down different procedures. They are not alternatives for the same relief.
Under section 18 the Commission inquires into a complaint and may impose a penalty under section 20, but it has no power to direct the PIO to furnish the information sought.
A person who wants the information itself must use the appeal route: a first appeal to the senior officer and a second appeal to the Commission under section 19, where the Commission can order disclosure under section 19(8).
The applicant was directed to file appeals under section 19.

The points of difference, in a list for the answer:

Who may file. Complaint: “any person” in the situations in section 18(1). Appeal: a person who did not receive a decision in time or is aggrieved by the PIO’s decision, or a third party.
Forum. Complaint goes directly to the Commission. Appeal goes first to the senior officer in the authority, and only then to the Commission.
Time limit. None is fixed for a complaint. A first appeal lies within 30 days and a second within 90 days, each extendable for sufficient cause.
Relief. Complaint: inquiry and, where the default is proved, penalty or a recommendation for disciplinary action under section 20. Appeal: an order to disclose, and penalty as well.
Nature. A complaint is supervisory and disciplinary; an appeal is remedial, to get the information.

The trap. Do not write that a complainant can never get the information. The Court said the complaint route does not lead to an order for disclosure; the applicant must appeal. If both are open, advise the applicant to file the first appeal and, where the conduct of the PIO deserves it, a complaint as well.

How this is examined

“Examine the constitution, powers and functions of Information Commissions” (April 2021): write the previous note’s section 1 and 4 briefly, then this note in order. “Explain the appeal mechanism and distinguish it from complaint; state case laws” (April 2021): the next note for the appeal mechanism, then section 5 of this note with State of Manipur.

Now try the real questions: Right to Information past question papers.