Section 18: Powers and functions of Information Commissions

Right to Information Act, 2005 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2005

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 18

Section 18 vests the Central and State Information Commissions with broad inquisitorial powers to receive and inquire into citizen complaints concerning non-compliance, refusal, delay, or misleading information, conferring upon Commissions the full discovery and evidentiary powers of a Civil Court under the CPC.

  • Comprehensive Grounds for Complaint under Section 18(1): A complaint may be submitted to the Commission by any person who: (a) is unable to submit a request because no PIO has been designated; (b) has been refused access by a PIO; (c) has not received a response within statutory time limits; (d) has been required to pay unreasonable fees; (e) believes they have been given incomplete, misleading, or false information; or (f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records.
  • Civil Court Discovery and Inquiry Powers under Section 18(3): In conducting inquiries, the Commission is vested with all powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of: (a) summoning and enforcing attendance of persons and examining them on oath; (b) requiring discovery and inspection of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning public records from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents; and (f) any other prescribed matter.
  • Absolute Power to Examine Any Public Record In Camera under Section 18(4): The Commission is empowered to examine any record to which the Act applies which is under the control of any public authority; notwithstanding any other law enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature, no such record may be withheld from the Commission on any ground.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) 15 SCC 1: A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 18 and Section 19 serve separate and distinct statutory purposes; Section 18 is an inquisitorial and punitive jurisdiction to investigate complaints and levy penalties under Section 20, but the Commission has no power under Section 18 to direct disclosure of information. The remedy to seek access to information lies exclusively by way of an appeal under Section 19.
  • Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 13 SCC 14: The Supreme Court held that while inquiring into a complaint under Section 18 and exercising powers of a civil court, the Commission must adhere strictly to principles of natural justice, provide fair hearing, and frame clear charges before initiating penal proceedings.
  • Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525: The Supreme Court affirmed that under Section 18(4), the Commission possesses plenary statutory authority to summon and inspect in camera confidential inspection reports of banks held by the RBI to ascertain if public interest warrants disclosure.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In courtroom strategy, maintain strict vigilance over the dichotomy between Section 18 and Section 19 established in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur. If representing an applicant seeking access to withheld documents, always file a first appeal under Section 19(1) and a second appeal under Section 19(3); do not file a complaint under Section 18, as the Commission cannot order document release under Section 18. Conversely, if representing a public authority facing a Section 18 complaint where the complainant seeks document supply, raise an in limine objection that the complaint cannot be converted into an appeal.