RTI Section 18 complaints limited to mala fide denials; cannot bypass Section 19 appeals or demand disciplinary actions/enquiries; repetitive identical applications misuse RTI mechanism; no penalty without proven unreasonable conduct.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 19(1), 20(1) - Complaints under Section 18 - Scope limited to examining mala fide denial, unreasonable delay, or penal violations - No right to directions for disclosure unless violation established - Section 18 supervisory, Section 19 appellate - Cannot bypass statutory appeal procedure - Repeated applications on identical issues misuse RTI mechanism - No obligation to create information, conduct enquiries, or initiate disciplinary action - Unexplained delay and non-exhaustion of first appeal remedies render complaints untenable - No penalty without proven mala fide or unreasonable conduct. (Paras 153, 154, 155, 157, 159, 160)

(B) RTI Act - Public Authorities not grievance redressal forums - Cannot demand punitive or vigilance actions via RTI - Repeated re-agitation of settled matters impermissible - Advance service of complaints on respondents essential for due process. (Paras 155, 157, 162)

Facts of the case:
38 clubbed complaints by single complainant against CPIOs of Central Board of Direct Taxes and Income Tax authorities seeking action taken on officers for alleged negligence in prior CIC orders, details of technical glitch enquiries, disciplinary reports, refund data, service records, and corruption allegations related to bogus refunds - No CPIO responses or first appeals on record - RTI applications from 2019-2021, complaints filed 2023 - Complainant absent at hearing despite notice - Respondents submitted information either unavailable, not pertaining to their office post faceless operations shift, or transferred appropriately.

Findings of Court:
No mala fide denial or deliberate violation by respondents - Information largely relates to non-existent records, other jurisdictional offices, or matters outside RTI purview - Complainant failed to file first appeals or serve complaints - Repeated filings indicate misuse - No cause for penalty under Section 20(1).

Issues: Whether complaints under Section 18 sustainable without exhausting Section 19 appeals; validity of seeking disciplinary actions/enquiry reports via RTI; propriety of voluminous repetitive applications; existence of mala fide denial justifying penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 18 proceedings cannot substitute appellate remedies under Section 19 - RTI not for grievance redressal or forcing administrative actions - Repeated identical queries misuse Act - Penalty requires proven mala fide, absent here - Advised judicious RTI use.

Result: Complaints disposed of - No intervention warranted.

Table of Content
1. clubbed complaints due to common parties and issues. (Para 1 , 2)
2. repeated non-response to rtis on prior cic compliance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111)
3. hearing proceedings and complainant absence. (Para 112 , 113)
4. rti excludes vigilance and non-existent information. (Para 114 , 115)
5. respondent submissions deny information availability. (Para 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152)
6. section 18 supervisory, not appellate. (Para 153 , 154)
7. rti not for grievances; delay bars complaints. (Para 155 , 156 , 157 , 158)
8. no mala fide without deliberate denial. (Para 159 , 160)
9. advise against rti misuse. (Para 161 , 162)
10. complaints dismissed; no intervention needed. (Para 163)

Information sought:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:

“Kindly refer to decision of Hon. CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/626844-BJ.

The CIC has observed as under:

The Commission observed that there is an administrative lacuna in the Respondent Public Authority in the manner of dealing with the RTI applications and record keeping as was evident from mismatch in the records of the Respondent Public Authority while the Complainant presented a copy of the online replies by the CPIO. Therefore, it was clear that the record of RTI applications and its replies was not properly collated and kept with the Respondent which tantamount to dereliction of duty and disrespect towards the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The submission made by the Respondent regarding technical glitches/faults in dealing with the RTI applications was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.

Further the CIC has decided as under:-

The Commission therefore instructs the Chairman, CBDT to depute an official of an appropriate seniority to examine and analyze the glitches in the technical software so as to initiate measures for its rectification within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance of the said decision should necessarily be intimated to the Complainant under endorsement to the Commission.

Kindly provide me the following information:

1. Action taken on Mr. SK Roy, JCIT and CPIO for his negligent approach and direction of duties in view of order of CIC as above.

2. Name and Designation of the Officer deputed by the Chairman, CBDT to enquire in the glitches as instructed by CIC.

3. Copy of report of Officer as at sl.2 above until today.

4. The fee is paid online.”

2. Not having received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

CIC/CBODT/C/2023/629649

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on : 09.05.2020

CPIO replied on : Not on record

First appeal filed on : Not on record

First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.06.2023

Information sought:

4. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.05.2020 (online) seeking the following information:

“Kindly refer to decision of Hon. CIC vide No. CIC/CCAPT/637156-BJ.

The CIC has observed as under:

The Commission observed that there is an adm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2626

RTI Section 18 complaints limited to mala fide denials; cannot bypass Section 19 appeals or demand disciplinary actions/enquiries; repetitive identical applications misuse RTI mechanism; no penalty without proven unreasonable conduct.

Login now and unlock premium legal research