The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the statutory framework of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by directing an expeditious adjudication of a pending second appeal, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute the RTI appellate mechanism. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and timely redressal under the RTI regime.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mahesh Singh, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking specific documents from a government authority. Despite the statutory 30-day period for response expiring, no information was provided. The petitioner then filed a complaint with the Collector, who summoned him for a personal hearing. Subsequently, the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, issued a communication requiring the petitioner to deposit a fee for document supply.
Key Facts
- The petitioner submitted his RTI application on an unspecified date, triggering the 30-day statutory response period
- The concerned authority failed to respond within the statutory timeframe
- The petitioner filed a complaint with the Collector, leading to a personal hearing
- The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, demanded payment for document supply
- The petitioner responded by asserting his status as a Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholder, claiming exemption from fees under Rule 5(2) of the RTI Rules, 2005
- The authorities ignored this claim and did not supply the documents
- The petitioner filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act
- The first appeal was not decided within the 30-day statutory period
- The petitioner then filed a second appeal under Section 19(2) before the higher appellate authority
- The second appeal remains pending as of the date of the writ petition
Procedural History
- Date of RTI application: Not specified, but statutory period expired prior to complaint
- Date of complaint to Collector: Not specified
- Date of fee demand by Gram Panchayat Secretary: Not specified
- Date of BPL exemption representation: Not specified
- Date of first appeal filing: Not specified
- Date first appeal deadline expired: 30 days after filing (statutory)
- Date second appeal filed: Not specified, but filed after first appeal remained undecided
- Date writ petition filed: 2026 (exact date not stated)
- Date of hearing before High Court: 06 May 2026
- Date of judgment: 06 May 2026
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Direct issuance of the requested documents under the RTI Act
- Initiation of penal action against erring officials under Section 20 of the RTI Act
- Costs of litigation
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the authorities violated mandatory provisions of the RTI Act by failing to respond, imposing unlawful fees, and ignoring BPL exemption. He contended that the inaction amounted to a denial of statutory rights and warranted judicial intervention under Article 226.
Respondent State: Contended that the petitioner’s BPL status had not been verified with supporting documents as required under Rule 5(2) of the RTI Rules, 2005. It further argued that the matter involved disputed questions of fact - such as the validity of BPL status and procedural compliance - which are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The Legal Issue
Can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution be maintained to enforce compliance with the RTI Act when a second appeal under Section 19(2) is still pending before the appellate authority?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the statutory mandate under the RTI Act, 2005, particularly Sections 7, 19, and 20, to argue that the authorities had committed a clear violation by failing to respond within the statutory period and by imposing unauthorized fees. He emphasized that his BPL status, supported by a valid card, entitled him to fee exemption under Rule 5(2) of the RTI Rules. He contended that the pendency of the second appeal did not bar judicial intervention, especially where there was a clear denial of statutory rights and administrative inaction.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the petitioner had not submitted verifiable proof of BPL status as required under Rule 5(2), rendering his exemption claim invalid. It further argued that the matter involved factual disputes - such as whether the documents were properly requested, whether the fee demand was lawful, and whether the BPL card was authentic - which are not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. The State relied on settled principles that writ courts should not interfere when statutory appellate remedies are available and pending.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the structure of the RTI Act and the role of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It noted that the Act establishes a three-tier appellate mechanism: first appeal under Section 19(1), second appeal under Section 19(2), and the Central Information Commission as the final appellate authority. The Court observed that the petitioner had already availed himself of this statutory mechanism by filing a second appeal, which remains pending.
"The remedy under the RTI Act is comprehensive and self-contained, and the existence of a pending second appeal precludes the invocation of writ jurisdiction for the same grievance."
The Court held that while the petitioner’s grievance is legitimate, the appropriate forum for adjudication is the second appellate authority under Section 19(2). The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the BPL claim or the legality of the fee demand, noting that these are factual issues to be determined by the appellate authority.
The Court emphasized that the purpose of the RTI Act is not merely to provide information but to ensure timely and accountable decision-making. The prolonged pendency of the second appeal, without any indication of progress, undermines the statutory objective. Therefore, the Court exercised its inherent power under Article 226 to ensure the ends of justice, not by deciding the appeal itself, but by compelling its timely adjudication.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the second appellate authority under Section 19(2) of the RTI Act must decide the petitioner’s pending appeal within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. The authority is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order, addressing all contentions, including the claim of BPL exemption and the legality of the fee demand. No other relief was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Appeals Must Be Exhausted Before Writ Petitions
- Practitioners must ensure that all statutory appellate remedies under the RTI Act are exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226
- Writ petitions filed prematurely, while a second appeal is pending, will be dismissed without prejudice to the pending appeal
- Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the Information Commission or appellate authority on factual disputes
Expedited Adjudication of RTI Appeals Is Judicially Enforced
- The Court’s two-week deadline sets a new benchmark for expeditious disposal of RTI second appeals
- Delay in deciding RTI appeals, even if technically within statutory limits, may now attract judicial intervention under Article 226
- Authorities must treat RTI appeals as time-bound statutory obligations, not administrative formalities
BPL Exemption Requires Documentary Verification
- Claiming BPL exemption under Rule 5(2) is not automatic; supporting documents must be submitted and verified
- Authorities may request proof of BPL status, but cannot impose fees without first evaluating the claim
- Blanket denial of exemption without verification may be deemed arbitrary and violative of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act
