Appeal
Commencement. Ss. 4(1), 5(1) (2), 12, 13, 15, 16, 24, 27, 28 (15-06-2005) and rest provisions on 120th day of its enactment.
Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with appeal. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the exp The Act was enacted on 15 Jun 2005.
(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.
(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.
(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to--
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including--
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d) reject the application.
(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.
(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.
Section 19, The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Central Government and State Governments have a constitutional and statutory obligation to fill vacancies in Information Commissions in a timely manner through a transparent process, and the Supreme Court can issue mandamus directions to compel such appointments. The failure to maintain adequate strength of Information Commissioners violates the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and frustrates the purpose of the Right to Information Act 2005. Information Commissions must be staffed adequately based on workload, and the appointment process must be transparent with public disclosure of selection criteria, shortlisted candidates, and deliberations. Persons of eminence from all fields mentioned in the RTI Act should be considered for appointment, not limited to government employees.
On this section: Appeals to Information Commissions; the Court noted that these are final appellate authorities and their functioning is critical to the RTI regime
-
Malappuram District Co. Op. Bank LTD vs State Information Commission
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Cooperative societies registered under state cooperative societies acts are not public authorities under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless they satisfy one of the statutory tests: (a) are established or constituted by Constitution, Parliament law, State Legislature law, or executive notification; or (b) are owned by the appropriate government; or (c) are controlled by the appropriate government with substantial control (not mere supervisory/regulatory control) over management and affairs; or (d) are substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government (meaning actual, existing, positive and real financing to substantial extent where body practically runs by such funding). The determination of whether a particular cooperative society meets these tests is a question of fact to be examined by the State Information Commission or Central Information Commission when disputed, on evidence. The burden of proof lies on the applicant seeking information or the government to demonstrate that a society satisfies one of these tests.
On this section: Appeal mechanism - provides avenue for appeal against Information Officers' decisions to senior officers within each public authority
-
Manohar vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
State Information Commissions, being quasi-judicial bodies exercising adjudicatory functions with power to impose penalties and recommend disciplinary action having civil consequences, are bound by principles of natural justice including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Before recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act 2005, the Commission must provide a hearing to the concerned Public Information Officer. The grounds for such disciplinary action are exhaustive and limited to: persistent failure to receive application or furnish information within 30 days, mala fide denial, providing incorrect/incomplete/misleading information, destruction of information, or obstruction in furnishing information - all without reasonable cause. 'Negligence' alone is insufficient. The Commission must record reasoned findings that the default was persistent and without reasonable cause before recommending disciplinary action. The word 'shall' in Section 20(2) should be read as 'may', conferring discretion on the Commission to evaluate whether circumstances warrant recommendation based on the officer's explanation and the facts of the case.
On this section: First appeal procedure before Collector
-
The Public Information Officer v. Somen Kumar Bose
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2013-08-22 DATE VERIFIED. V.K. Jain J. W.P.(C) 2491/2010. Isolate: RTI Act s.19 second appeal / s.19(8) CIC powers — the Commission may require existing records to be supplied but cannot direct or recommend initiation of disciplinary proceedings or issue of a chargesheet; that is outside the information-access jurisdiction. CIC order set aside (14-year Posts suspension of K.M. Somasundram). Leading HC. Distinctive (Somen Kumar Bose). Map 19 only. Anbuchelvan mandamus-to-decide skipped.
On this section: RTI Act s.19(8) on a second appeal lets the CIC require existing records to be supplied; it cannot direct or recommend disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet (PIO v. Somen Kumar Bose).
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P10 appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon. 4. Going through the pleadings, I find that Ext.P10 is a statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner invoking Section 19 of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, it is necessary that the Appellate Authority considers the same on merits and take appropriate decision thereon within a reasonable time. W.P.(C)No.13318 of 2024 In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider …
-
… Raman from the State Information Commission is a third party information and therefore, the order passed by the State Commission without opportunity of hearing to the appellant is hit by Sub Section (4) of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Appellant is the 7th respondent in the said writ petition. Whereas, W.P(C).No.27429 of 2020 is filed by the appellant seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the District Collector, Thrissur to immediately conduct an enquiry into the 8 serious malpractices pointed out by …
-
… Challenging the above order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority did not follow Section 19 (5) of the Right to Information Act. It is stated in Section 19 (5) of the Right to Information Act, "Any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, who denied the request." Petitioner submits that he has reason for denying the …
Made under this section, and citing it
3 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 19
What have the courts held on Section 19 of the Right to Information Act?
Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India (15 Feb 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Appeals to Information Commissions; the Court noted that these are final appellate authorities and their functioning is critical to the RTI regime. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: RTI Act 19, section 19 RTI Act, section 19 of the Right to Information Act. People searching for it also type rti 19(1) and rti 19(3). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India (15 Feb 2019).
What should I read with Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 4 (Obligations of public authorities), section 7 (Disposal of request), section 11 (Third party information), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 3 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2017 (2017), then RTI Rules, 2012 (2012).
When was Section 19 of the Right to Information Act enacted?
Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, cited as RTI Act 19, was enacted on 15 Jun 2005 as Act 22 of 2005. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 7. Disposal of request657 words
- 4. Obligations of public authorities643 words
- 2. Definitions618 words
- 13. Terms of office and conditions of service530 words
- 8. Exemption from disclosure of information520 words
- 18. Powers and functions of Information Commissions473 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.