Introduction
The phrase “Appellate Authority” is central to the machinery of transparency under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). In RTI parlance it primarily refers to the officer or body that entertains appeals against decisions (or non-decisions) of Public Information Officers (PIOs). Proper use of the appellate route—first appeal within the public authority and the second appeal to the Information Commission—is the backbone of effective enforcement of the right to information. For practitioners, mastery of the concept of Appellate Authority means turning statutory timelines, procedural defaults and powers of the Commission to practical advantage for the client.
Core Legal Framework
- Statute: Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
- Primary operative provision: Section 19 (Appeals).
- Section 19(1) prescribes the remedy of first appeal: an aggrieved person may appeal to “such officer who is senior in rank to the Public Information Officer as may be designated by the public authority” where the request was made.
- Section 19(3) provides for a further (second) appeal to the Central Information Commission or the relevant State Information Commission (as the case may be).
- Related and supporting provisions:
- Section 7(1)–(2): time-limit for PIO to respond (30 days) and the concept of “deemed refusal” where no response is given within the statutory period.
- Section 5: obligation to maintain and publish records—useful when arguing for disclosure of particular classes of documents.
- Section 18: powers of the Commission to require production of records and to inquire.
- Section 20: penal consequences — the Commission’s power to impose monetary penalties (Rs.250 per day up to Rs.25,000) on PIOs for malafide denial or other defaults and to recommend disciplinary action.
- Institutional set up: First Appellate Authority (FAA) is designated within the public authority; second appellate forum is the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC), created under the Act (statutory scheme and functions set out in the Act’s chapters creating the Commissions).
Practical Application and Nuances
How the appellate route functions in practice and the issues lawyers must attend to.
- The two-tier appellate path — what to do and when
- First appeal: file to the FAA designated within the same public authority. This is mandatory before approaching the Commission (subject to limited exceptions such as a writ under Article 226 where urgent constitutional relief is needed).
- Second appeal: if not satisfied with FAA’s order (or if FAA does not decide), file to the CIC/SIC.
-
Time sensitivity: the statutory timelines for filing appeals must be watched and, where delay occurs, reasonable grounds must be pleaded for condonation.
-
Deemed refusal — a powerful procedural weapon
-
If a PIO fails to respond within the statutory period (generally 30 days), the failure is treated as a refusal (deemed refusal). In practice, a first appeal can be filed on this ground and argued that the FAA must treat the original application as refused and order disclosure. Attach proof of date of submission (postal receipt/e-mail proof/RTI portal acknowledgement).
-
Evidence to establish the appeal chain
- Essential documents to include with both first and second appeals:
- Copy of the original RTI application (with proof of delivery).
- Copy of the PIO’s communication (if any).
- Proof of payment of application fee or fee exemption.
- Postal / email / portal receipts and dates.
- Copies of any subsequent correspondence (reminders, partial replies).
- Identity/proof of relationship where third-party information or privacy is asserted by the PIO.
-
If relying on deemed refusal, attach the proof of submission and point to absence of a reply within the statutory period.
-
Common grounds to press before the FAA and Commission
- Deemed refusal/non-response.
- Improper invocation of exemptions (Section 8/9): failure to specify precise exemption/irrelevant or vague denial.
- Partial disclosure or production of truncated records.
- Excessive fee demands or refusal to accept prescribed fees.
- Procedural lapses (failure to transfer under Section 6(3), failure to provide inspection/attested copies).
-
Mala fides, concealment or intentional delay — relevant for seeking penalty under Section 20.
-
FAA’s factual and procedural role
- FAA is usually an administrative officer senior to the PIO — their role is investigatory and corrective: review whether the request was properly handled, whether the exemption relied on is sustainable and whether records exist.
-
FAA is generally expected to give a reasoned order; a perfunctory order invites prompt second appeal and judicial review.
-
Commission’s powers on second appeal
- The CIC/SIC can examine records, summon officials, order disclosure, impose penalties and recommend disciplinary action. It can also condone delays in filing second appeals if sufficient cause is shown.
- The Commission can require the production of records from any public authority (Section 18 powers).
Concrete examples (practice scenarios)
– Example A — Deemed refusal: Client files RTI on 1 March, receives no reply by 31 March. Practitioner files first appeal on 5 April citing deemed refusal, attaches RTI portal acknowledgement and argues for immediate disclosure. If FAA does not decide, second appeal to Commission citing Section 7(2) and asking for penalty under Section 20 for failure to furnish information.
– Example B — Partly withheld file: PIO provides a file but with redactions. First appeal asks FAA to examine the records in camera or direct the PIO to produce the unredacted file to the FAA for review; argue that redactions are not covered by specific exemptions and that public interest outweighs limited privacy claims. If FAA upholds redaction, second appeal argues misapplication of Section 8 exemption and reliance on the Aditya Bandopadhyay principles (see below).
– Example C — Excess fee/demand for inspection only: client made payment; PIO refuses certified copies and offers only inspection. Appeal to FAA demanding copies, citing rules and prior CIC decisions; escalate to Commission if FAA refuses.
Landmark Judgments
- Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497 (Supreme Court)
- Why it matters: The Supreme Court set important interpretative directions for the RTI Act: exemptions must be narrowly construed; public interest outweighs limited privacy concerns; the Act’s regime should favour disclosure. The judgment clarified limits on exemptions such as Section 8(1)(j) (personal information) and stressed that RTI cannot be used to seek personal information unless the larger public interest outweighs the privacy interest. For appellate practice, this decision is routinely invoked to challenge broad or generic denials and to press for a reasoned public-interest balancing test.
- Practical takeaway from Aditya Bandopadhyay: when arguing before FAA/CIC, insist on a granular exemption analysis and an explicit public interest balancing exercise — mere citation of an exemption without analysis is vulnerable.
Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
- Checklist before filing the first appeal
- Confirm submission proof of RTI application and fees.
- Verify that the issue raised is within scope of RTI and not excluded by statute.
- Draft a focused groundsheet for the first appeal: cite exact deficiencies, deadlines missed, and remedy sought (disclosure, inspection, copies, penalty).
-
Consider whether a contemporaneous reminder to the PIO (with proof) will yield a response before filing appeal — sometimes effective.
-
Drafting the appeal(s): tone and structure
- Keep the first appeal succinct, evidence-driven and administrative: state facts, attach supporting documents, specify relief (order to supply, inspection, penalty referral).
-
In second appeals to the Commission, develop legal arguments (statutory interpretation, exemption exceptions, reliance on leading authorities such as Aditya Bandopadhyay), and specifically plead for production of records under Section 18 and for imposition of penalty under Section 20 where malafide delay or concealment is apparent.
-
Use of in-camera production and inspection requests
-
If the public authority claims commercial or privileged exemption, move that the FAA or Commission inspect the records in camera or direct production to the Commission for assessment.
-
Seeking penalties and disciplinary recommendations
-
Preserve material showing mala fide conduct, false statements, unexplained destruction of records, or deliberate suppression. These factual predicates strengthen a penalty case before the Commission.
-
Parallel remedies — writs and contempt
-
Where there is unreasonable delay by the Commission or clear denial of statutory power, consider writ jurisdiction (Article 226/32) as an exceptional route. For deliberate flouting of Commission orders, contempt proceedings might be available.
-
Pitfalls to avoid
- Failing to exhaust the mandatory first appeal before approaching the Commission (except in narrow circumstances).
- Not proving service/receipt of the original RTI application.
- Filing appeals without attaching the PIO’s order (where one exists) or without a clear chronology.
- Overreliance on general public interest pleas without addressing specific balancing against exemptions.
- Ignoring statutory fees or procedural requirements, thereby inviting dismissal on technical grounds.
Conclusion
The Appellate Authority regimen under the RTI Act is where the statutory right to information is most effectively vindicated. For practitioners the operative priorities are: (i) establish the procedural chain (RTI application → proof of submission → FAA appeal → Commission appeal), (ii) exploit the “deemed refusal” doctrine where PIOs miss statutory timelines, (iii) insist on reasoned application of exemptions (using Aditya Bandopadhyay), and (iv) marshal documentary proof for penalty and production orders. Successful RTI appellate practice is forensic and disciplined: precise pleadings, airtight chronology, targeted legal arguments and readiness to ask for record production and penalty where warranted.