Section 19(8) — In its decision, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission or the appellate authority, as the case may be, has the power to:

1. Require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including —
   • by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
   • by appointing a Public Information Officer where none exists;
   • by publishing certain information or categories of information;
   • by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
   • by enhancing the provision of training to officers on the right to information;
   • by providing it with an annual report as prescribed in Section 4(1)(b);
2. Require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
3. Impose any of the penalties provided under this Act (CIC/SIC only, not FAA);
4. Reject the appeal.

The most-used power. Direct the PIO to provide the information in the form requested — certified copy, inspection, digital format.

Example order paragraph.

“In exercise of Section 19(8)(a)(i), the PIO is directed to provide certified copies of the running-bill register for Contract No. XXX, for the period April 2023 to March 2024, within 15 working days of receipt of this order. Fee at Rs. 2 per page is payable by the appellant.”

Used where the public authority has not designated a PIO and the applicant has been rebuffed. Rare but occasionally invoked for local bodies and smaller authorities.

The “Section 4 enforcement” power. Where the authority has not complied with proactive-disclosure obligations, direct publication of specific categories — budget, beneficiary list, tender schedule.

Example. Directing a municipal corporation to publish its ward-wise spending register on its website.

Where the underlying problem is poor record-keeping — direct the authority to digitise, maintain a proper register, or change destruction schedules.

Where PIO/FAA decisions show systematic misunderstanding of the Act — direct the authority to conduct training. Often paired with a date for compliance report.

Where the authority has not submitted the statutory annual report under Section 4(1)(b). Direct submission within a timeline.

Underused. Order the public authority to compensate the complainant for loss or detriment suffered. Amounts vary; commissioner orders have ranged from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 50,000 depending on documented loss.

Example. Where deemed refusal caused the applicant to miss a statutory deadline (e.g., appeal window on a land matter) and suffer a documented financial loss.

Commission power only. FAA cannot impose Section 20 penalty but can recommend it in the appeal order for the Commission's subsequent consideration.

Dismiss the appeal where: time-barred without sufficient cause, ground not raised before the PIO, or PIO's reply is legally sustainable on review.

Though not explicitly in Section 19(8), the FAA's inherent appellate power allows remand to the PIO for procedural cure (Section 11 notice, Section 10 severability, fresh speaking reply). Remand is preferable where the FAA cannot decide without the procedure being completed.

Example remand order.

“The PIO is directed to issue Section 11 notice within 5 days of receipt of this order, consider the third party's representation within 10 days, and issue a fresh speaking reply within 40 days of the original RTI application. Time between the filing of this appeal and the date of this order shall not count against the PIO for deemed-refusal purposes.”

• Name the sub-section. “In exercise of Section 19(8)(a)(i)…” — not just “directed”.
• Specify compliance timelines. 15 working days is the common standard.
• Copy to the Head of Office for accountability.
• Keep compensation quantified — specific amount, not “appropriate compensation”.
• Structural orders (iii-v) should carry a compliance-report date.

• Generic “appeal allowed” without citing the specific power.
• Ordering penalty as FAA — the FAA cannot; only the Commission can.
• Vague timelines (“at the earliest”) — unenforceable.
• No copy to Head of Office — reduces likelihood of compliance.
• Missing compensation opportunity — genuine applicant losses underawarded.

• CIC orders enforcing Section 4 under 19(8)(a)(iii) — multiple.
• DoPT directions: FAAs are quasi-judicial; powers must be exercised with reasoned orders.
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008) — appellate body has wide remedial powers.

Q1. Can the FAA order compensation without quantifying?
The FAA may order “compensation for the loss suffered” with the authority to determine the quantum; better practice is to specify an amount.

Q2. Who enforces the FAA order?
The PIO and Head of Office. If unenforced, the applicant escalates to Second Appeal before the Commission.

Q3. Can the FAA set a deadline shorter than 15 days?
Yes, in life/liberty cases or where the information is time-critical.

Section 19(8) is a toolbox, not a single tool. Use the right power for the right finding, cite the sub-section, specify timelines, and the order becomes not just a decision but a compliance document.

• FAA speaking-order guide
• FAA review checklist
• First Appeal timelines
• PIO & FAA knowledge base

• RTI Act, 2005, Sections 19(8), 20
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2008)
• CIC orders on 19(8) powers

Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.