The First Appeal is decided inside the public authority that refused. The Second Appeal lifts the matter out of the public authority and puts it before a statutory Commission. That external review is the real engine of the RTI Act.

You can file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) if any one of the following is true.

• The First Appellate Authority's order is against you, wholly or partly.
• The First Appellate Authority has not decided within 30 days (or 45 days, for reasons recorded in writing).
• The Public Information Officer demanded a fee beyond what the Rules allow, and the First Appellate Authority upheld that.
• The Public Information Officer's reply is evasive or non-responsive and the First Appellate Authority has failed to cure it.

A direct complaint under Section 18 lies in a different set of cases, such as where the Public Information Officer is not appointed, or where the authority refuses to even receive the application. See First Appeal under Section 19(1) for the full distinction.

• Central Information Commission — for Union Ministries, Union Territory administrations, public authorities substantially financed by the Union Government (including banks, regulators, PSUs, and statutory bodies under Central laws).
• State Information Commission — for State Government departments, Municipal Corporations, police stations, collectorates, State PSUs, and any public authority substantially financed by the State.

If the answering public authority exists under a Central law (for example the Central Board of Secondary Education, the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, or the Reserve Bank of India), the appeal goes to the Central Information Commission. If it exists under State law (for example a State Public Service Commission, a State police department, or a Gram Panchayat), the appeal goes to the concerned State Information Commission.

See State RTI vs Central RTI for a clear distinction and a routing flowchart.

Section 19(3) gives ninety days from the date on which the First Appellate Authority's decision “should have been made or was actually received”, whichever comes first.

• If the First Appellate Authority decided and communicated the order within 30 days, the 90 days runs from the date of receipt.
• If the First Appellate Authority is silent at Day 30 or Day 45, the 90 days runs from that day.
• The Commission can condone delay beyond 90 days only on sufficient cause. See the proviso to Section 19(3). Condonation is discretionary, not routine.

1. A copy of the original RTI application (Section 6) filed with the Public Information Officer.
2. A copy of the reply (or non-reply confirmation) received from the Public Information Officer.
3. A copy of the First Appeal (Section 19(1)) filed with the First Appellate Authority.
4. A copy of the First Appellate Authority's order (or proof of non-receipt).
5. A chronological index and any other documents the appellant intends to rely on.

Missing any of these is the most common return-for-defect reason. The checklist is the practical bar.

• Open cic.gov.in.
• Navigate to “Online Appeal / Complaint”.
• Register or login with your mobile number and email.
• Fill the prescribed Appeal Procedure Rules, 2005 format. Upload each of the five documents as a PDF, JPG, or GIF, each below 2 MB.
• Submit. The Commission issues a Diary Number on submission. Save it.
• Print the acknowledgement, sign it as verification under Rule 3(viii), and post one signed copy to the Registrar, Central Information Commission.

• Prepare four original sets and one set for your own record.
• Each set contains the appeal memo, the index, the chronological chart, and the five supporting documents.
• Send by speed post or registered post with acknowledgement due. Avoid private courier.
• Send one set each to the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority (advance copies under the Appeal Procedure Rules).
• Send the original and one extra set to the Commission.

• Submit at the receipt counter, Central Information Commission, Ground Floor, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 during working hours. Obtain a dated receipt.
• For State Commissions, check the respective State portal or State Commission office for the receipt counter and hours.

In practice, Central Information Commission disposal time has ranged from 6 months to over 12 months in recent years. State Information Commissions vary widely; some carry pendency of two years and more.

The Second Appeal hearing is a tribunal-style proceeding. An Information Commissioner presides. The Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority, and the appellant are notified. Appearance can be in person, through an authorised representative, by video conference, or (often) by written submission.

• The onus is on the Public Information Officer — Section 19(5) places the burden of proving that the denial was justified squarely on the Officer.
• Commission members ask short questions. Bring the file. Know the dates.
• The appellant may request to be heard by video conference. Most Commissions allow this, especially for applicants outside the capital.
• Rules of evidence are relaxed. The proceedings are summary, not trial-like.

Section 19(8) gives the Commission wide powers. In practice, an order contains some combination of the following.

• Direction to disclose the information within a specified time, in a specified form.
• Direction to appoint a Public Information Officer or First Appellate Authority where one is missing.
• Direction to publish a class of information proactively under Section 4(1)(b).
• Compensation to the complainant for loss or other detriment, under Section 19(8)(b).
• Penalty on the Public Information Officer of Rs 250 per day of delay, up to Rs 25,000, under Section 20. The penalty is personal, not on the public authority.
• Disciplinary action recommendation against the Public Information Officer, under Section 20(2).

The Commission's decision is binding under Section 19(7).

• Chief Information Commissioner — Raj Kumar Goyal, sworn in December 2025 (predecessor Heeralal Samariya demitted office 13 September 2025).
• Strength — one Chief Information Commissioner and ten Information Commissioners (full sanctioned strength, restored in December 2025 for the first time in nine years).
• Pendency — over one lakh appeals and complaints nationally in the pipeline at state and central commissions at the end of 2024-25. See Live tracker for the current figures.

The composition of Information Commissioners shapes hearing speed. Full strength is a rare and welcome state.

19. Appeal.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

(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;
    (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.

(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.

(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.

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1. The Supreme Court clarified the boundary between Section 18 (complaint) and Section 19 (appeal), and reaffirmed that a Commission's order under Section 19(8) is binding on the public authority.

Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 255 (Supreme Court, 15 February 2019). The Court directed that vacancies in Information Commissions must be filled promptly and that the appointment process must be transparent. The judgment flows directly into any practitioner's complaint about delay. See the case page.

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 (Constitution Bench, 13 November 2019). A five-judge bench held the Supreme Court of India is a public authority under the RTI Act. The judgment elaborates the public-interest test that the Commission must apply in Second Appeals. See the case page.

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525. The Supreme Court narrowed the fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e). A regulator-regulated relationship is not fiduciary by itself. Information from regulated banks sits squarely within the RTI framework. See the case page.

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, Electoral Bonds case, 2024 (Supreme Court, 15 February 2024). Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to know about political funding. A statutory confidentiality clause yields to the constitutional right to information on a public-interest test. See the case page.

Section 8(1)(j) was substituted on 14 November 2025 by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The public-interest override earlier embedded within clause (j) has been removed. Public interest reasoning now operates through Section 8(2). Commissions deciding Second Appeals after that date must locate the override in Section 8(2) and record a reasoned finding. See the amendment note and the PIO reply practitioner note.

  First Appellate Authority order (or silence at Day 30 / 45)
         ↓
  Within 90 days — File Second Appeal at CIC / SIC
         ↓
  Commission issues Diary Number, notifies PIO and FAA
         ↓
  Parawise reply received from PIO and FAA
         ↓
  Hearing notice → hearing (in person / by VC / written)
         ↓
  Commission order — disclosure + timeline + penalty + compensation
         ↓
  Compliance by public authority
         ↓
  If further aggrieved — writ petition in the High Court under Article 226

If the order is in your favour and the public authority does not comply, apply for contempt of the Commission's order before the same Commission. The Commission can direct compliance and impose penalty. If the public authority continues to defy, approach the High Court by writ petition under Article 226 for a mandamus.

If the order is against you, your remedy is limited. The Second Appeal is the last administrative step. The High Court can be approached only on grounds of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or perversity. Ordinary errors of fact are generally not interfered with on writ.

No. The RTI Act and the Central Information Commission's Appeal Procedure Rules, 2005 do not prescribe a fee for filing a Second Appeal. Some State Commissions prescribe a nominal fee; check the applicable State rules.

No, at the Central Information Commission. But you can file it online at cic.gov.in, which is preferred. After online filing, a signed verification must reach the Registrar in hard copy under Rule 3(viii).

Usually no. Section 19(3) requires a First Appeal first. But yes under Section 18 — direct complaint to the Commission is available where the Public Information Officer has not been appointed, or refuses to receive an application, or demands a fee beyond the Rules, or for other specified defaults.

Central Information Commission disposal has ranged from 6 to 15 months in recent years, depending on the sitting Commissioner bench and pendency. State Commissions vary from a few months to over two years.

Yes. Most Commissions, including the Central Information Commission, offer video conferencing. Request it at the time of filing or on receipt of the hearing notice.

Write to the Registrar of the Commission for a hearing date. If the Commission is silent for an unreasonable period, a writ petition under Article 226 for a mandamus directing early disposal is available. The Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 255 has addressed Commission vacancies and delays.

Yes. Under Section 19(8)(b), the Commission may require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. The power is sparingly used but present.

Yes. Under Section 20, the Commission can impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay, up to Rs 25,000, on the Public Information Officer personally, with an opportunity of hearing. The penalty is not on the public authority.

The Commission can direct contempt-like action against the Public Information Officer. The final remedy is a writ of mandamus under Article 226 before the High Court.

The correspondence and hearing at the Commission is in English or Hindi at the Centre. State Commissions typically allow the Official Language of the State. Translations can be submitted where needed.

• Guide for applicants — the drafting primer.
• First Appeal under Section 19(1) — the step before this.
• First Appeal — grounds to address.
• Template: first RTI application.
• Template: first appeal.
• Template: second appeal.
• Why RTI applications get rejected.
• RTI for personal problems — real cases + templates.
• Third-party information under RTI — Section 11.
• Justification for denial is mandatory.
• State RTI vs Central RTI.
• Live tracker — CIC composition and pendency.
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI, (2019) 3 SCC 255.
• CPIO SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
• RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
• ADR v. UoI, Electoral Bonds, 2024.
• PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025.
• DPDP Rules, 2025 — amendment to Section 8(1)(j).

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005), Sections 7, 18, 19, 20.
2. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No. 24 of 2019), in force 24 October 2019.
3. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3), operational 14 November 2025.
4. The Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005.
5. The Right to Information Rules, 2012 (Central).
6. Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1.
7. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 255.
8. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
9. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
10. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, Supreme Court, Electoral Bonds decision, 2024.
11. Central Information Commission — cic.gov.in.

20 April 2026, with reference to the Right to Information Act, 2005 as amended by the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in force 14 November 2025.