The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the mandatory nature of statutory timelines under the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that delays in deciding second appeals by State Information Commissioners violate the spirit of transparency and accountability. This order provides immediate relief to citizens and journalists seeking timely access to public information.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a journalist engaged in public interest reporting, filed multiple applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information from public authorities. In each instance, the Public Information Officer failed to respond within the mandated 30-day period. The petitioner then filed first appeals under Section 19(1) of the Act, which were also left undecided by the First Appellate Authorities.
Procedural History
The petitioner escalated the matter by filing second appeals before the State Information Commissioner, Bench at Nagpur, under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The appeals were filed between July and August 2025, as detailed in Annexures 3, 6, 9, and 12. Despite the statutory deadline for disposal of second appeals being 30 days - with a possible extension up to 45 days under Section 19(6) - no decision had been rendered by the time the writ petition was filed in February 2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Information Commissioner to decide the pending second appeals within a reasonable time, arguing that prolonged inaction rendered the RTI remedy illusory.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 imposes a mandatory deadline on State Information Commissioners to decide second appeals, and whether failure to comply constitutes a violation of the petitioner’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Shri A. A. Dhawas argued that Section 19(6) establishes a clear, non-negotiable timeline: 30 days for disposal of second appeals, extendable only to 45 days in exceptional circumstances. He contended that the prolonged delay - exceeding 45 days - amounted to a denial of effective remedy, undermining the foundational purpose of the RTI Act. He relied on Central Information Commission v. State of Manipur to emphasize that statutory timelines are not directory but mandatory in nature.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Government Pleader waived service of notice and did not file any counter-affidavit or opposition, effectively conceding the delay. No legal argument was advanced to justify the inaction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the structure and intent of the RTI Act, noting that its primary objective is to promote transparency and ensure timely access to information. The Court held that Section 19(6) is not a procedural formality but a substantive guarantee to prevent bureaucratic inertia. The provision’s language - "shall be decided within thirty days" - leaves no room for discretionary interpretation.
"The Right to Information is rendered meaningless if the appellate machinery itself becomes a source of delay. The legislature intended a swift, efficient mechanism; this Court cannot permit the very institution meant to enforce transparency to become its obstacle."
The Court rejected any implied tolerance for delay, even in the absence of a formal objection from the State. It emphasized that the petitioner, as a journalist, was exercising a public function, and delay in adjudication directly impacts the public’s right to know. The Court further noted that the State Information Commissioner’s office has adequate resources and procedural mechanisms to meet statutory deadlines.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates that second appeals be decided within 30 days, with a maximum extension of 45 days. The State Information Commissioner was directed to decide all pending appeals listed in the petition within 30 days of the order’s production, with communication of the decision to follow within two weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Deadlines Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now treat delays beyond 45 days under Section 19(6) as actionable violations, not mere administrative lapses
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable even without exhaustion of all remedies if statutory timelines are clearly breached
- Courts will not tolerate passive inaction by Information Commissions, even in the absence of formal opposition
Journalists and Public Interest Litigants Have Enhanced Standing
- Journalists filing RTI appeals are recognized as performing a public function, entitling them to expedited judicial intervention
- Delay in deciding RTI appeals now constitutes a violation of Article 19(1)(a), not merely a breach of procedural rules
- Courts may issue proactive directions without requiring proof of prejudice, given the public nature of the right
Procedural Compliance Is a Constitutional Imperative
- Public authorities must institutionalize internal mechanisms to ensure compliance with RTI timelines
- Failure to decide appeals within 45 days may attract contempt proceedings or administrative accountability
- The burden shifts to the Information Commission to justify any delay, not to the applicant to prove harm
