Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
The law emphasizes that appeals and reviews are mechanisms for accountability, but it does not explicitly state that a CPIO can independently review or reverse their own decision.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Janak Raj Sharma, son of Late Om Prakash Sharma vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director - Jharkhand"]- ["Dayashis Chakma v. State Chief Information Commissioner Tripura Information Commission West Tripura and Others - Gauhati"]- ["Sonadhan Chakma VS State of Assam - Gauhati"]- ["Rajwinder Singh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Savita Sheoran VS State Information Commission, Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"]
In the realm of transparency and accountability, India's Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities. But what happens when the initial decision-maker—the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO)—wants to revisit their own ruling? This is a common query: Can the Chief Public Information Officer review its own decision as per the Right to Information Act?
This blog post delves into the legal framework, key provisions, case laws, and practical implications. While the RTI Act promotes openness, it establishes strict procedural hierarchies to prevent arbitrary reconsiderations. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and statutes; consult a legal expert for advice specific to your situation.
The RTI Act designates the CPIO (or Public Information Officer, PIO, in state contexts) as the frontline authority for handling information requests. Under Section 7, the CPIO must respond within 30 days, providing information or citing exemptions. R. K. Jain VS Union of India - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 377
Key responsibilities include:- Receiving and processing RTI applications.- Deciding on disclosure, including third-party consultations under Section 11. Jayshree Dubey VS Central Information Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(MP) 117- Informing applicants of their rights to appeal if dissatisfied.
However, the Act does not grant the CPIO inherent powers to self-review. Instead, it channels disputes through a structured appeal mechanism.
The RTI Act outlines a clear escalation path:1. First Appeal: To the First Appellate Authority (FAA), a senior officer, within 30 days of the CPIO's decision (Section 19(1)). High Court for the State of Telangana VS Telangana State Information Commission - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 2502. Second Appeal/Complaint: To the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC) within 90 days (Sections 18-19).
This framework ensures impartiality. As one source notes, the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days. Alok Kumar VS State Chief Information Commissioner, Bihar at Patna - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 731
Review powers are not automatic. The Information Commissions can inquire and impose penalties for delays or denials (Section 20), but only after due process. For instance, penalties require a hearing: no opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the petitioner prior to imposing penalty... impugned order is bad in law. Alok Kumar VS State Chief Information Commissioner, Bihar at Patna - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 731
Generally, no. The CPIO lacks statutory authority to unilaterally review or modify its decisions. The RTI Act emphasizes finality unless appealed through designated channels. M. K. Sharma VS State Information Commission - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 577
Core case law clarifies this: The court observed that the Chief Information Commissioner had no power to review its orders unless statutorily conferred. M. K. Sharma VS State Information Commission - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 577 This principle extends to CPIOs, as review powers must be explicitly granted by statute.
In a related context, courts have stressed adherence to rules over RTI for certain information, like certified copies under High Court Rules: When the High Court Rules provide a mechanism for obtaining information/certified copies, the provisions of the RTI Act should not be resorted to. R. S. Misra VS Registrar, Supreme Court of India - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2752
Several judgments reinforce the limits on PIO/CPIO autonomy:
Penalty and Natural Justice: Imposing penalties without hearings violates principles of natural justice, underscoring procedural rigor even for higher bodies. 00800054277 (Note: Adapted from context on PIO delays.)
Third-Party Information: Disclosure involving third parties follows Section 11, balancing public interest: disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to interests of such third party. Jayshree Dubey VS Central Information Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(MP) 117
Transfer of Requests: If information lies with another authority, the CPIO must transfer within 5 days: the Public Information Officer under the Act, is to transfer, within 5 days, the request to other public authority. Registrar General, High Court of Madras VS R. M. Subramanian - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1977
Reasoned Orders: Rejections require justification: the authority has to give a valid reason for doing so. Registrar General, High Court of Madras VS R. M. Subramanian - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1977
Commission's Inquiry Powers: Under Section 18, Commissions check if PIO decisions conform to the Act, but not via self-initiated reviews by CPIOs. Registrar General, Chennai VS K. U. Rajasekar - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1643
These cases highlight that while transparency is paramount, procedural integrity prevents self-correction loops.
Rare exceptions may apply if:- Specific rules or notifications grant review powers (not indicated in standard RTI provisions).- Clerical errors allow correction under general administrative law, but not substantive revisits.- Public interest overrides, as in Rafale-related disclosures where public domain status negated exemptions. YASHWANT SINHA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIECTOR - 2019 4 Supreme 269
However, the absence of a statutory review power for the CPIO means that once a decision is made, it cannot be unilaterally reconsidered by the same officer. No broad exceptions exist for CPIOs.
Authorities should train staff on these limits to prevent unauthorized actions, ensuring clarity on the limits of review powers. M. K. Sharma VS State Information Commission - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 577
Under the RTI Act, the CPIO cannot typically review its own decisions—recourse lies in statutory appeals to the FAA or Information Commissions. This upholds fairness and prevents bias, aligning with the Act's transparency goals.
Key Takeaways:- No Self-Review: CPIOs lack inherent powers; appeals are mandatory. M. K. Sharma VS State Information Commission - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 577- Structured Process: Follow Sections 19 for appeals. High Court for the State of Telangana VS Telangana State Information Commission - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 250- Public Interest Focus: Balances disclosure with procedure. Jayshree Dubey VS Central Information Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(MP) 117- Seek Professional Help: For complex cases, engage RTI activists or lawyers.
By understanding these nuances, citizens can effectively navigate RTI, fostering accountable governance. Stay informed, file responsibly, and promote openness.
References:- R. K. Jain VS Union of India - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 377: CPIO role in disclosure.- M. K. Sharma VS State Information Commission - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 577: Limits on review authority.- Additional insights from Alok Kumar VS State Chief Information Commissioner, Bihar at Patna - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 731, R. S. Misra VS Registrar, Supreme Court of India - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2752, High Court for the State of Telangana VS Telangana State Information Commission - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 250, Jayshree Dubey VS Central Information Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(MP) 117, Registrar General, High Court of Madras VS R. M. Subramanian - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1977, Registrar General, Chennai VS K. U. Rajasekar - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1643.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
#RTIAct, #CPIOReview, #RightToInformation
It has been stipulated in Section 19 of the Act 2005 that 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 per Section 20 of the Act 2005 it is evident that the Central Information#HL_END....
Bhowmik, Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner reads as follows : - ... '(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 ... It is made clear that the Tripura Information Commission must issue notices to the petitioner as well as to....
(PIO) designated under the Act for delay in providing to impose penalty on a Public Information Officer may file a review before the Commission for review of a decision/order inheres right of a party to p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:603pt
, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section; (b) information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as ... (2) If the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, fails to give decis....
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 ... Appeal.-(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-sec....
a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused ... [1] Any person who, does not receiv....
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 ... Appeal. -(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of subsec....
(C) 3530/2011 dated 21.11.2017, setting aside the decision of the Central Information Commission ('CIC') dated 11.05.2011. The latter had directed the Central Public Information Officer ('CPIO'), Supreme Court of India to furnish some information to the appellant. ... so that the public has minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain information." ... The issue pertaining to the right of a third party to app....
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case my 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 ... Assistant Public Information O....
As far as section 11 is concerned, section 11 of the RTI Act provides that where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates ... Public interest is involved in the point that only eligible candidates should be appointed and a citizen has a #H....
“The preamble (of the Right to Information Act, 2005) would obviously show that the Act is based on the concept of an open society. The Supreme Court in that context referred to the competing rights and observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 thus:- “10. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 this Court had occasion to observe the object and purpose behind the enactment of the Act in the following terms: Insofar as the Right to Information Act is concerned in Chief Information Commissioner vs.
5. The First Respondent, has by Order No. 12732/B/2012 dated 19.04.2012, rejected that Second Appeal stating as follows:- Based on the information received, complaints, appeals, disputing the basis of the information, queries raised thereon and request for redressal of grievance cannot be made under the RTI Act. “As per the Right to Information Act, “Information” can only be asked.
As its preamble shows, the Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority in order to strengthen the core constitutional values of a democratic republic. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 this Court had occasion to observe the object and purpose behind the enactment of the Act in the following terms: "The preamble (of the Right to Information Act, 2005) would obviously show that the Act is based on the concept of an open society. 8. Insofar as the Right to Information Act is concerned in Chief Information Commissioner vs.
It is the duty of the Public Information Officer to deal with request from persons requiring information under the Right to Information Act. If the information sought for is held by or its subject matter is interlinked/connected with the function of another public authority, then, the Public Information Officer under the Act, is to transfer, within 5 days, the request to other public authority and inform the Applicant immediately. If the concerned request cannot be made in writing, then, he is to render reasonable assistance to the concerned person to reduce the same into w....
Also that, as per Section 18 of the Act, the State Information Commission can conduct enquiry etc., as per decision Ahmedabad Education Society & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2008 GUJARAT 42. As per Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, the State Information Commission is only required to look into as to whether the endorsement issued by the Public Information Officer is inconformity with the Right to Information Act and also, whether the information which is sought for by the Petitioner/Applicant has been deliberately withheld or is not furnished within the time stipul....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
