Times of India: Dehradun: Tuesday, 7th October
2025.
Uttarakhand high court has
ruled that a state information commission has no power under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, to direct another officer to conduct an investigation
into a complaint, setting aside a 2017 order issued by the state information
commission to the district magistrate of Haridwar. A division bench of Justices
Ravindra Maithani and Alok Mahra was hearing on an appeal against a
single-judge order in Aug 2017.
The judge had upheld the state information commission's direction to the Haridwar district magistrate to investigate a complaint filed by the appellant and submit a report to the commission. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the commission acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the RTI Act. The appellant said, "The commission is only empowered to examine delays or denials in providing information and to impose penalties under Section 20. It cannot direct any officer to conduct inquiries or furnish information."
This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Chief Information Commissioner vs State of Manipur, which clarified that an information commission, when acting under Section 18, cannot direct disclosure of information or order investigations. The apex court held, "Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act serve different purposes and are not interchangeable."
The bench also took note of the state information commission's direction dated May 8, 2017 asking the Haridwar DM to conduct a probe and report findings to the chief education officer and other officials and held that it exceeded the scope of powers granted under the RTI Act. Both the state's counsel and the complainant's representative admitted in court that "the commission had no authority to issue such instructions."
The court concluded that the commission had overstepped its mandate, noting that Section 18 empowers it only to assess non-response or improper denial of information and, where necessary, levy penalties. It added, "Ordering a separate inquiry into the complaint lies outside the statutory framework." The order issued on May 8, 2017, was therefore set aside as legally unsustainable.
The judge had upheld the state information commission's direction to the Haridwar district magistrate to investigate a complaint filed by the appellant and submit a report to the commission. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the commission acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 18 of the RTI Act. The appellant said, "The commission is only empowered to examine delays or denials in providing information and to impose penalties under Section 20. It cannot direct any officer to conduct inquiries or furnish information."
This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Chief Information Commissioner vs State of Manipur, which clarified that an information commission, when acting under Section 18, cannot direct disclosure of information or order investigations. The apex court held, "Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act serve different purposes and are not interchangeable."
The bench also took note of the state information commission's direction dated May 8, 2017 asking the Haridwar DM to conduct a probe and report findings to the chief education officer and other officials and held that it exceeded the scope of powers granted under the RTI Act. Both the state's counsel and the complainant's representative admitted in court that "the commission had no authority to issue such instructions."
The court concluded that the commission had overstepped its mandate, noting that Section 18 empowers it only to assess non-response or improper denial of information and, where necessary, levy penalties. It added, "Ordering a separate inquiry into the complaint lies outside the statutory framework." The order issued on May 8, 2017, was therefore set aside as legally unsustainable.
.JPG)
.JPG)
