HomeRTI Case-Law Library › Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Ma...
CIC / appeal principles

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur

Quick answer

A complaint under Section 18 and an appeal under Section 19 are different routes. When you have been refused information, the remedy is the first and second appeal under Section 19 — an Information Commission hearing a Section 18 complaint cannot itself order access to the information.

Court / forum
Supreme Court of India
Citation
AIR 2012 SC 864 · Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011
Decided
12 Dec 2011
RTI sections
18, 19

Issue before the court

Whether the Information Commission, while deciding a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, can direct that the requested information be provided, or whether that relief lies only through the appeal procedure under Section 19.

Facts in brief

The question arose over the scope of the Information Commission’s powers under Section 18 (complaints) versus Section 19 (appeals), after the High Court ruled on the distinction.

Holding / decision

The Supreme Court held that Sections 18 and 19 serve different purposes. A Commission deciding a Section 18 complaint cannot pass an order granting access to information; a person refused information must use the appellate remedy under Section 19 — first appeal, then second appeal to the Commission. The two procedures are not interchangeable.

The RTI principle it set

For denial of information, the correct remedy is the Section 19 appeal process, not a Section 18 complaint — the power to direct disclosure flows from Section 19, not Section 18.

What it means for you

If your RTI is refused, delayed or wrongly answered, file a First Appeal and then a Second Appeal under Section 19 — that is the route to actually get the information. A Section 18 complaint addresses misconduct, not the supply of information.

Check your appeal deadlineFree · no login · plain-English guidance

What RTI can help you get

  • A First Appeal to the appellate authority for refusal or delay
  • A Second Appeal to the Information Commission under Section 19
  • A complaint under Section 18 for procedural misconduct or penalties

What RTI may not give you

  • An order for access to information through a Section 18 complaint alone
  • Skipping the appeal route and expecting disclosure via a complaint
  • Treating complaint and appeal as interchangeable remedies

When to cite this case

When deciding whether to file a complaint or an appeal, or when a Commission declines to order disclosure in a Section 18 complaint.

Later developments / current status

The Section 18 versus Section 19 distinction in this case is consistently followed; Information Commissions routinely direct aggrieved applicants to the appeal route for disclosure relief.

Limits / caution: The Commission retains wide powers under Section 18 to inquire into how a PIO handled a request and to impose penalties; this case draws the line on the specific power to direct disclosure, which belongs to the appeal process.

Source & verification

Full-text reference: Read the full judgment (free third-party legal database — not an official record)
Source checked on: 24 June 2026
Reviewed by
Adv. Syed Musab Rahim Hashmi
RTI Advocate · FileMyRTI Legal Team
Review status: Verified
Last reviewed: 25 June 2026
Source verified against: Central Information Commission — Landmark Supreme Court RTI Judgments (official compilation)

Related FileMyRTI services

Use the Deadline Clock to track your First and Second Appeal due dates.

This is educational information, not legal advice. This summary is for general understanding of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The authoritative text is the official judgment as recorded by the court. Any third-party links are provided only for convenient reading. For your specific matter, consult a qualified legal professional.
Success Your changes has been saved
Error