Skip to content

Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Right to Information Law

Appeals, Penalties and Miscellaneous Provisions under the RTI Act

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

If a PIO refuses or ignores your request, you file a first appeal with a senior officer within 30 days (section 19(1)), then a second appeal with the Information Commission within 90 days (section 19(3)). The Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 a day, capped at ₹25,000, under section 20. Courts cannot hear suits on orders under the Act (section 23).

Understand Appeals, Penalties and Miscellaneous Provisions

The RTI Act gives you a right to information. That right is worthless if an officer can simply ignore you. So the Act builds a ladder of remedies: a first appeal inside the public authority, a second appeal to the Information Commission, and penalties on officers who default.

The first appeal goes to an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the same public authority. You can file it if you get no decision within the time in section 7, or if you are unhappy with the PIO's decision. The second appeal goes to the Central or State Information Commission. Both have fixed time limits, and both can be admitted late if you show sufficient cause.

The Commission also hears complaints under section 18. A complaint is different from an appeal. It covers cases such as refusal to accept your application, refusal of access, no response in time, an unreasonable fee, or incomplete, misleading or false information. In an inquiry the Commission has civil court powers for summoning, discovery, affidavits and requisitioning records.

The Act puts the burden on the officer. In an appeal, the PIO who denied the request must prove the denial was justified (section 19(5)). Under section 20, the PIO must also prove he acted reasonably and diligently. The Commission can order compliance steps, compensation to the complainant, and penalties.

Finally, the Act protects and limits. Section 21 protects anything done in good faith under the Act. Section 23 bars courts from entertaining suits or proceedings about orders under the Act. Such orders can be challenged only by appeal under the Act. Section 25 requires annual reports by the Commissions.

Key rules to remember

First appeal (section 19(1))
Within 30 days of the expiry of the time for decision, or of receiving the decision → to an officer senior in rank to the PIO in the public authority
Late appeal can be admitted if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause.
Third party appeal (section 19(2))
Appeal by the third party against a section 11 disclosure order → within 30 days from the date of the order
Applies where the PIO orders disclosure of third party information.
Second appeal (section 19(3))
Within 90 days from the date the decision should have been made or was actually received → to the Central or State Information Commission
The Commission may admit it late for sufficient cause.
Disposal time (section 19(6))
Appeal disposed of within 30 days of receipt, or within an extended period not exceeding 45 days in total from filing, for reasons recorded in writing
Section 19(6) refers to appeals under sub-sections (1) or (2).
Onus of proof (section 19(5))
Onus to prove that denial was justified is on the PIO who denied the request
Under section 20 the PIO also bears the burden of proving he acted reasonably and diligently.
Penalty (section 20(1))
₹250 per day until the application is received or information is furnished; total penalty ≤ ₹25,000
Hearing must be given to the PIO before the penalty is imposed.
Disciplinary action (section 20(2))
Persistent default without reasonable cause → Commission recommends disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to the PIO
The Commission recommends. It does not itself discipline.
Bar of jurisdiction (section 23)
No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under the Act; challenge only by appeal under the Act
Section 21 separately protects acts done in good faith.

How to solve Appeals, Penalties and Miscellaneous Provisions questions

Use this method for any problem or theory question on RTI appeals, penalties and related provisions.

  1. 1Identify the stage: no reply or unsatisfactory reply from the PIO (first appeal), unsatisfactory first appeal decision (second appeal), or a defaulting PIO (penalty).
  2. 2Check whether it is an appeal (section 19) or a complaint (section 18). Complaint grounds include refusal to accept application, no response in time and unreasonable fee.
  3. 3Fix the forum and time limit: 30 days to the senior officer, 90 days to the Commission, 30 days for a third party against a section 11 order.
  4. 4Count the days from the correct starting point: expiry of the time for decision, or receipt of the decision. Then check if sufficient cause can save a late appeal.
  5. 5For penalty questions, find the default: refusal to receive, delay, malafide denial, knowingly incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, destruction, or obstruction. Then compute ₹250 per day up to ₹25,000.
  6. 6Note the safeguards: hearing for the PIO, burden of proof on the PIO, and reasonable cause as a defence.
  7. 7If a court is approached, apply section 23. If the officer acted honestly, apply section 21.
  8. 8Write the conclusion clearly, citing the section for each point.

Quickest way: Forum, days, rupees

When to use it: Use it for short problem questions where you must name the remedy and the limit quickly.

  1. Write three anchors: 30 days to senior officer, 90 days to Commission, ₹250 a day up to ₹25,000.
  2. For any penalty sum, multiply days of default by ₹250 and cut it off at ₹25,000.
  3. Ask two checks: was a hearing given, and did the PIO prove reasonable cause?
  4. Add section 23 if anyone goes to court, and section 21 if the officer acted in good faith.
  5. Close with one-line conclusion citing the section.

Common mistakes in Appeals, Penalties and Miscellaneous Provisions

  • Saying the first appeal goes to the Information Commission.

    Students mix up the two appeal stages.

    Fix: First appeal is inside the public authority, to an officer senior in rank to the PIO. Only the second appeal goes to the Commission.

  • Writing 30 days for the second appeal.

    The 30-day limit of the first appeal sticks in memory.

    Fix: Second appeal is within 90 days under section 19(3). Link 30 with first appeal and 90 with second.

  • Not capping the penalty at ₹25,000.

    Students multiply days by ₹250 and stop.

    Fix: Always compare the result with ₹25,000. For example, 120 days gives ₹30,000 by multiplication, but the penalty is ₹25,000.

  • Saying the Commission itself takes disciplinary action on persistent default.

    Section 20(1) and 20(2) are blurred.

    Fix: Under section 20(2) the Commission only recommends disciplinary action under the officer's service rules.

  • Putting the burden of proof on the applicant.

    Ordinary litigation puts the burden on the claimant.

    Fix: Under section 19(5) the PIO must prove denial was justified. Under section 20 he must prove he acted reasonably and diligently.

  • Ignoring the hearing before penalty.

    Students focus only on the amount.

    Fix: Mention the first proviso to section 20(1): reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty.

Worked examples

Example 1

Meera applied to the PIO of a public sector bank on 1 March. She got no reply within the time under section 7. She wants to know the remedies available, and the forum and time limits for each stage.

Show the solution
  1. Provision: under section 19(1), a person who does not receive a decision within the time in section 7(1) may file a first appeal.
  2. Forum and time: the appeal goes to an officer senior in rank to the PIO in the bank, within 30 days from the expiry of the period for decision.
  3. Late filing: the senior officer may admit it after 30 days if Meera shows sufficient cause.
  4. Disposal: the first appeal should be decided within 30 days of receipt, or within an extended period not exceeding 45 days in total from filing, for reasons recorded in writing (section 19(6)).
  5. Second stage: if she is aggrieved by the decision, or gets none, she may file a second appeal with the Central or State Information Commission, as the case may be, within 90 days from the date the decision should have been made or was received (section 19(3)).
  6. Alternative: she may also complain to the Commission under section 18(1)(c) for not getting a response in time.

Answer: Meera should file a first appeal with the senior officer within 30 days of the expiry of the time for decision. If still aggrieved, she can file a second appeal with the Information Commission within 90 days. She may also file a complaint under section 18(1)(c).

Example 2

A Central PIO, without reasonable cause, delayed furnishing information for 120 days after the due date. The Central Information Commission, while deciding the appeal, finds this. The PIO says the Commission cannot penalise him and that he will go to a civil court against the order. Discuss.

Show the solution
  1. Provision: section 20(1) says that where the Commission, while deciding a complaint or appeal, finds the PIO has without reasonable cause not furnished information within the time in section 7(1), it shall impose a penalty of ₹250 each day until information is furnished, with a total cap of ₹25,000.
  2. Computation: 120 days × ₹250 = ₹30,000. This exceeds the cap.
  3. Cap applied: the penalty is limited to ₹25,000.
  4. Safeguards: the PIO must get a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently is on him.
  5. Persistent default: if the default is persistent and without reasonable cause, the Commission may recommend disciplinary action under his service rules (section 20(2)).
  6. Court route: section 23 bars courts from entertaining any suit, application or other proceeding about an order made under the Act. Such an order can be questioned only by appeal under the Act.
  7. Conclusion on the PIO's claim: the Commission has power to penalise, and a civil court cannot entertain his suit.

Answer: The Commission can impose a penalty of ₹25,000 (₹30,000 capped), after hearing the PIO, who must prove he acted reasonably. His plan to sue in a civil court fails because of section 23.

Exam tips

  • Learn the numbers in a set: 30 days, 90 days, 45 days, ₹250, ₹25,000. Examiners test them directly.
  • In problem questions, write provision, facts, then conclusion, and name the section each time.
  • Separate section 18 complaint from section 19 appeal. A question may ask you to distinguish them.
  • For penalty sums, show the multiplication and the cap as two separate lines.
  • Pair section 23 with section 21 in short notes: one bars courts, the other protects good faith action.

Practice questions from Right to Information Law

Appeals, Penalties and Miscellaneous Provisions in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

Appeals, Penalties and Miscellaneous Provisions: frequently asked questions

What is the time limit for a first and second appeal under the RTI Act?

The first appeal must be filed within 30 days from the expiry of the time for decision or from receiving the decision. The second appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date the decision should have been made or was received. Both can be admitted late for sufficient cause.

How much penalty can be imposed on a PIO under section 20?

The Commission imposes ₹250 for each day of default until the application is received or information is furnished. The total cannot exceed ₹25,000. The PIO must first be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What does section 23 of the RTI Act say?

It bars courts from entertaining any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under the Act. Such an order can be questioned only by an appeal under the Act.

Who has to prove that denial of information was justified?

The PIO who denied the request. Section 19(5) puts the onus on him in appeal proceedings. Under section 20 he also has to prove he acted reasonably and diligently.

Can the Information Commission order compensation?

Yes. Under section 19(8)(b) the Commission can require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. It can also order steps to secure compliance and impose penalties.