Appeals Against Orders of the Central Information Commission in India

Appeals Against Orders of the Central Information Commission: Avenues and Adjudicatory Principles under Indian Law

Introduction

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter "RTI Act") was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority in India. The Central Information Commission (CIC), established under Section 12 of the RTI Act, serves as the apex appellate body for adjudicating second appeals and complaints arising from the denial of information or non-compliance with the Act's provisions by Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs). While the RTI Act provides a two-tier internal appeal mechanism (Section 19), culminating in a second appeal to the CIC (Section 19(3)), the decisions of the CIC itself are not subject to further statutory appeal under the Act. Consequently, any challenge to an order passed by the CIC typically takes the form of judicial review by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or, in exceptional circumstances, by the Supreme Court under Article 32. This article analyzes the legal framework and judicial pronouncements governing such challenges, often colloquially referred to as 'appeals' against CIC orders.

The Central Information Commission: Powers and Functions

The CIC is vested with significant powers to ensure compliance with the RTI Act. These include the powers of a civil court in respect of summoning and enforcing attendance of persons, requiring discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, and requisitioning public records (Section 18(3)). The Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner And Another v. State Of Manipur And Another (2011 SCC 15 1, [Ref 2]) clarified the distinction between the CIC's powers under Section 18 (complaints) and Section 19 (appeals). The Court held that Section 18 primarily empowers the Commission to inquire into complaints and impose penalties, but does not grant the power to direct the disclosure of information, which is an appellate power exercisable under Section 19. This delineation is crucial as it defines the jurisdictional boundaries of the CIC, a potential ground for challenging its orders.

Under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act, the CIC, while deciding appeals, has the power to require the public authority to take steps necessary to secure compliance, including providing access to information, appointing a CPIO, publishing information, making changes to record management, and imposing penalties (Union Of India v. Pk Srivastava, Delhi High Court, 2013, [Ref 8]). The decisions of the CIC are binding (Shri S. P. Goyal v. Department Of Personnel & Training, CIC, 2010, [Ref 13]), making judicial review the primary recourse for aggrieved parties.

Avenues for Challenging CIC Orders

As the CIC is the final appellate authority under the RTI Act, its orders can be challenged primarily through:

  • Writ Jurisdiction: The most common method is by filing a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or in rare cases, before the Supreme Court under Article 32. This is not an appeal in the traditional sense but a review of the legality and constitutionality of the CIC's order.
  • Review by the CIC: While the RTI Act does not explicitly confer a general power of review on the CIC, it has been observed that, like any judicial or quasi-judicial authority, the CIC may review its decision on grounds of an error of law or fact apparent on the face of the record (Shri S. P. Goyal v. Department Of Personnel & Training, CIC, 2010, [Ref 13]). However, this is a limited power and not a substitute for judicial review.

The judiciary generally expects statutory remedies to be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction. As observed in Varun Krishna v. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) (CIC, 2020, [Ref 14, 15, 16, 17]), citing Supreme Court precedents, where a statute provides an efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court may be reluctant to entertain a petition under Article 226. Since the CIC represents the culmination of the statutory appellate process under the RTI Act, a challenge to its order naturally proceeds to judicial review.

Grounds for Judicial Review of CIC Decisions

Challenges to CIC orders before High Courts are typically based on established grounds for judicial review of administrative or quasi-judicial actions. These include:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

A fundamental ground for challenging a CIC order is the violation of principles of natural justice, such as the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). In Central Information Commission And Another Petitioners v. State Bank Of India S (2016 SCC ONLINE P&H 12330, [Ref 1]), the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside a CIC order because the petitioner-bank did not participate in the hearing, and remanded the appeal for a fresh decision after allowing the bank to participate. Similarly, Section 19(4) of the RTI Act mandates that if a decision appealed against relates to third-party information, the CIC must give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party (Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat State Information Commission & Ors., Gujarat High Court, 2007, [Ref 9]; Union Of India Petitioner v. R. Jayachandran, Delhi High Court, 2014, [Ref 22]).

2. Jurisdictional Errors

A CIC order can be challenged if the Commission has acted outside its statutory jurisdiction or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. As established in Chief Information Commissioner And Another v. State Of Manipur And Another (2011 SCC 15 1, [Ref 2]), if the CIC, while dealing with a complaint under Section 18, directs the disclosure of information (a power vested under Section 19), such an order may be challenged for exceeding jurisdiction. Similarly, an appeal to the CIC may be deemed incompetent if the prescribed procedure under the Act has not been followed, for instance, if a second appeal under Section 19(3) is filed without a valid decision from the First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) (Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Petitioner v. Sushma Singh & Ors. S, Delhi High Court, 2017, [Ref 12]).

3. Misinterpretation or Misapplication of Statutory Provisions

This is a common ground for challenging CIC orders, particularly concerning the interpretation of exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

4. Perversity of Findings or Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record

If a CIC order is based on no evidence, or if its findings are demonstrably contrary to the record, or if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, it may be challenged. The High Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction, generally do not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court would, but they can intervene if the findings are perverse or based on manifest error.

5. Failure to Adhere to Procedural Requirements of the RTI Act

The RTI Act lays down specific procedures, such as the timeline for appeals (Section 19(3), as discussed in Tata Motors Limited & Anr. Petitioners v. State Of West Bengal & Ors. S, Calcutta High Court, 2010, [Ref 11]), and the onus on the CPIO/SPIO to justify denial of a request (Section 19(5), as noted in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat State Information Commission & Ors., Gujarat High Court, 2007, [Ref 9]). Significant deviations by the CIC from these statutory mandates can form a ground for challenge.

Judicial Approach to Reviewing CIC Orders

The judiciary generally adopts a cautious approach when reviewing orders of specialized tribunals like the CIC. In Hansi Rawat & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. S (2013 SCC ONLINE DEL 168, [Ref 18]), the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding a CIC decision, noting that the information sought had been furnished and that the appellants were found to be misusing the RTI Act. The Court observed that proceedings under the RTI Act are not for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.

Courts also take cognizance of potential misuse or abuse of the RTI process. The CIC itself has noted instances of abuse (P. Jayasankar v. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan, I.P.S., Madras High Court, 2013, [Ref 10], referring to a CIC order). The Supreme Court's observation in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, cited by the CIC in Varun Krishna v. ONGC ([Ref 14-17]), cautioned against "indiscriminate and impractical demands" under the RTI Act that could be counter-productive.

The Delhi High Court in Union Of India Petitioner v. R. Jayachandran (2014 SCC ONLINE DEL 767, [Ref 22]) set aside CIC orders for not specifically considering statutory provisions like Section 8(1)(j) and the third-party procedure under Section 11(1) and 19(4), and for relying on general observations rather than specific legal reasoning pertinent to the cases.

Conclusion

While the Central Information Commission is the highest appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, its decisions are not immune from judicial scrutiny. Aggrieved parties can seek recourse through writ petitions before High Courts, challenging CIC orders on grounds such as violations of natural justice, jurisdictional errors, misinterpretation of statutory provisions (especially exemptions under Section 8), perversity of findings, or failure to adhere to prescribed procedures. The higher judiciary plays a vital role in ensuring that the CIC operates within the confines of the RTI Act, correctly interprets its provisions, and adheres to the principles of fair play. This oversight ensures that the objectives of transparency and accountability enshrined in the RTI Act are achieved while also safeguarding other legitimate public and private interests. The jurisprudence developed through such challenges continues to refine the contours of the right to information in India.