Times of India: Nagpur: Wednesday, 21 January 2026.
In an important ruling reinforcing the statutory limits of transparency watchdogs, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Saturday held that the State Information Commissioner has no power under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to review its own appellate orders or to constitute a bench of two commissioners for that purpose in second appeals.
A division bench of
Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta delivered the verdict while allowing a
writ petition filed by Shriram Satpute, quashing a December 17, 2016, order
passed by a two-member bench of the State Information Commission in a review application.
The court held that the decision was vitiated by "2 illegalities",
the absence of statutory power to review and the lack of jurisdiction to form a
division bench.
The case arose from Satpute's RTI application filed on January 11, 2013, seeking information from the Forest Department at Mukutban regarding excavation allegedly carried out using JCB machines in Pimpri Jungle. After the Public Information Officer failed to furnish the information, Satpute filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority directed disclosure on February 14, 2014, but the PIO subsequently claimed that no such information was available.
Aggrieved, Satpute approached the State Information Commission in a second appeal under the Act. In a detailed order in the second appeal decided in 2014, the then State Information Commissioner directed disciplinary action and a departmental inquiry against the appellate authority for violating the RTI Act's Section 19(6) by not deciding the first appeal within the stipulated time.
However, that order was later allegedly reviewed and diluted by a special two-member bench of the commission, constituted by the Chief State Information Commissioner, which withdrew the disciplinary proceedings against the forest officer. This review order became the subject of challenge before the high court through counsels Gayatri Sharma and Tushar Mandlekar. Assistant govt pleader Kaustubh Lule represented the state.
The State Information Commission argued that, although the RTI Act does not expressly provide for a power of review, such authority was inherent, given the quasi-judicial nature of its functions. The HC bench rejected this contention, noting that the commission itself admitted that "there is no express power in the statute to review the order passed by the appellate authority."
Relying on its earlier ruling in Dominic s/o Gabriel Philip vs State Information Commissioner (Writ Petition No 2522 of 2016), which attained finality, the bench reiterated that "power of review under the provisions of the Act of 2005 is not available." It also recorded that there was no provision in the RTI Act allowing the constitution of a two-member bench to decide on review applications.
"Resultantly, the commission's orders suffer from two illegalities," the court observed. "One is that power of review is not available and secondly, the constitution of a bench, consisting of two members to review the judgment or order is also not available."
The HC accordingly quashed and set aside the review order of December 17, 2016, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.
In an important ruling reinforcing the statutory limits of transparency watchdogs, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Saturday held that the State Information Commissioner has no power under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to review its own appellate orders or to constitute a bench of two commissioners for that purpose in second appeals.
The case arose from Satpute's RTI application filed on January 11, 2013, seeking information from the Forest Department at Mukutban regarding excavation allegedly carried out using JCB machines in Pimpri Jungle. After the Public Information Officer failed to furnish the information, Satpute filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority directed disclosure on February 14, 2014, but the PIO subsequently claimed that no such information was available.
Aggrieved, Satpute approached the State Information Commission in a second appeal under the Act. In a detailed order in the second appeal decided in 2014, the then State Information Commissioner directed disciplinary action and a departmental inquiry against the appellate authority for violating the RTI Act's Section 19(6) by not deciding the first appeal within the stipulated time.
However, that order was later allegedly reviewed and diluted by a special two-member bench of the commission, constituted by the Chief State Information Commissioner, which withdrew the disciplinary proceedings against the forest officer. This review order became the subject of challenge before the high court through counsels Gayatri Sharma and Tushar Mandlekar. Assistant govt pleader Kaustubh Lule represented the state.
The State Information Commission argued that, although the RTI Act does not expressly provide for a power of review, such authority was inherent, given the quasi-judicial nature of its functions. The HC bench rejected this contention, noting that the commission itself admitted that "there is no express power in the statute to review the order passed by the appellate authority."
Relying on its earlier ruling in Dominic s/o Gabriel Philip vs State Information Commissioner (Writ Petition No 2522 of 2016), which attained finality, the bench reiterated that "power of review under the provisions of the Act of 2005 is not available." It also recorded that there was no provision in the RTI Act allowing the constitution of a two-member bench to decide on review applications.
"Resultantly, the commission's orders suffer from two illegalities," the court observed. "One is that power of review is not available and secondly, the constitution of a bench, consisting of two members to review the judgment or order is also not available."
The HC accordingly quashed and set aside the review order of December 17, 2016, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.
.JPG)
.JPG)
