S.18 RTI Act Does Not Empower State Commission To Direct PIO To Furnish Information Sought: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that when a complaint is filed before the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act for illegal denial of information, it may impose a penalty on the errant Public Information Officer. However, the provision does not empower the State Commission to direct the PIO furnish such information to the requester.

A Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed that in case of withholding of information, the aggrieved cannot resort to Section 18 of the Act to get access to the information since the Statute provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by a refusal to provide information under Section 19.

It clarified that a complaint under Section 18 of the Act can also be filed wherein the Commission can impose a penalty but cannot direct the PIO to furnish the information requested.

A person can approach and invoke jurisdiction of the State Information Commission through a complaint under Section 18 of the Act if there is illegal denial of information or withholding of information. On such a complaint what is open to the State Commission is to impose a penalty, and not to direct the Public Information Officer to furnish the information requested.

The Kerala High Court, in a 2014 decision, held that when an application made for information as provided under Section 6 of the RTI Act is rejected, the remedy available to the applicant is to file an appeal as provided under Section 19 and that a further complaint under Section 18 to the State Information Commission is not maintainable. The present Revision Petition was moved by the State Information Commission, taking exception of the law laid down by the Court, invoking Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC.

The Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission, Advocate M. Ajay, submitted that the view taken in the impugned order that a requester who was denied an information ought to file an appeal as provided under Section 19 of the Act and that the requester cannot prefer a further complaint under Section 18 of the State Information Commission is against the principle laid down by the Apex Court and the High Court in its previous decisions.

The Standing Counsel contended that the judgment, to the extent it deprives a person, who was denied information, the right to file a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, is an error that requires review.

Section 18 of the Act deals with the powers of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission, which have been categorised under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act. The Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission may receive and inquire into a complaint of any person-

(i) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act or,

(ii) has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act or,

(iii) has not been given a response to a request for information or access to the information within the time limits specified under the Act.

Under the residuary provision under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act, the Commission is empowered to inquire in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. Under Section 18(3) of the Act, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, while inquiring into any matter in this Section, has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit in respect of the matters specified in Section 18(1)(a) to (f).

The Court observed that if a requester applied for information under Section 6 of the Act and then did not receive any reply for the same, it must be deemed that he has been refused the information, and the said situation is covered under Section 7 of the Act. The recourse open for such a person to get the information is proved under Section 19 of the Act. 

It relied on the Apex Court decision in Chief Information Commissioner and another v. State of Manipur and another in which it was held that under Section 18 of the Act the commission has power to impose penalty as provided under Section 20. Similarly, the High Court had in B.N Mohandasan v. State Information Commission and others, observed that the procedure contemplated under Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character, whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information can only seek redress of getting access to that information only in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19 of the Act.

The Court further added that when the Statute provides, under Section 19, a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by a refusal to provide information, he has to get the information by following the said statutory provisions. The aggrieved cannot resort to Section 18 of the Act to get access to the information since the provisions under Section 18 do not invest such power on the Commission.

...a requester, who was denied information, cannot approach the State Information Commission invoking the provisions under Section 18 of the Act for getting the information. If to get information, his remedy is only to file an appeal as provided under Section 19 of the Act, the Court observed.

The Court observed the impugned judgment to the extent that it says that an applicant, when his application for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act is rejected, is not entitled to file a complaint to the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act is against the scheme of the Act and the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court and the High Court, and therefore is an error liable to be reviewed.

The Court, while disposing of the Review Petition, held that a person can invoke the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission through a  complaint filed under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act if there is an illegal denial of information or withholding of information. However, while dealing with such a complaint, the Court can impose a penalty, but directing the Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought does not come within the preview of the power conferred to the State Information Commission. 

Case Title: State Information Commission v. C. V. Rajendran and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 542

Click Here To Read/ Download The Order