Section 19 of Right to Information Act:

Section 19(1)

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 the case may 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 may be, in each public authority:

Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

Section 19(2)

Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.

Section 19(3)

A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:

Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

Section 19(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 or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.

Section 19(5)

In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.

Section 19(6)

An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Section 19(7)

The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.

Section 19(8)

In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) reject the application.

Section 19(9)

The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.

Section 19(10)

The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed.

Explained:

Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides a legal remedy for individuals who are dissatisfied with the information supplied by a public authority or who do not receive a response to their RTI application within the prescribed period. It establishes a two-stage appeal mechanism to ensure transparency, accountability and timely access to government records.

First Appeal Under Section 19(1)

If an applicant receives an unsatisfactory response, faces an unjustified denial of information or receives no reply within the prescribed time, they may file a first appeal before an officer senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or State Public Information Officer (SPIO). The appeal should ordinarily be filed within 30 days. The appellate authority may accept a delayed appeal if sufficient cause is established.

Second Appeal Under Section 19(3)

If the applicant remains dissatisfied with the first appellate decision, a second appeal may be filed before the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as applicable. The prescribed period is 90 days, subject to the Commission’s power to condone delay for sufficient cause.

Section 19 also protects third parties whose information may be disclosed, places the burden of justifying a denial on the concerned information officer and empowers Information Commissions to order disclosure, require corrective measures, award compensation and impose penalties permitted under the Act.

Important Judgments on Section 19

1. Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011)

The Supreme Court explained the distinction between the complaint mechanism under Section 18 and the appeal mechanism under Section 19. The case is important for understanding the appropriate legal remedy when information is denied.

2. Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

The Supreme Court emphasised procedural fairness in proceedings involving action against information officers. The judgment highlights the importance of following natural justice when disciplinary consequences are considered.

3. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019)

The Supreme Court stressed the importance of properly staffed Information Commissions and transparent appointments, recognising their essential role in making the RTI framework effective.

Conclusion

Section 19 is a cornerstone of the RTI Act, 2005. It enables applicants to challenge refusals, seek review of decisions and obtain remedies through the appropriate appellate authority. Understanding the limitation periods, appeal procedure and relevant judgments helps citizens exercise their right to information effectively.