Information Commission lacks jurisdiction to order information disclosure while entertaining a Section 18 complaint.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) challenged directions issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

An RTI applicant had approached the CIC by filing a complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

While adjudicating this complaint, the CIC invoked jurisdiction under Section 19(8) of the Act and issued directions to the MCD to implement a transparent functioning mechanism.

The MCD argued that the CIC cannot exercise powers under Section 19(8)—which pertain to appeals—while hearing a complaint under Section 18.

During the pendency of the writ, the MCD claimed substantial compliance with the directions but challenged the underlying jurisdiction of the CIC's order.

The court applied the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically distinguishing between the "Complaint" mechanism under Section 18 and the "Appeal" mechanism under Section 19.

It relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur & Anr. (2011), which established that Section 18 and Section 19 serve different purposes and one cannot be substituted for the other.

The court also applied the principles from Dr. Deepak Juneja v. CIC and High Court of Delhi v. R.K. Jain, affirming that the CIC lacks jurisdiction to direct disclosure of information under a Section 18 inquiry.

Finally, the court invoked the administrative law principle that where a statute provides a particular manner for an act to be performed, it must be done in that manner alone.

The court reasoned that the RTI Act provides two distinct procedural streams: Section 18 for complaints regarding procedural lapses (e.g., refusal to accept applications or providing false information) and Section 19 for substantive appeals regarding the disclosure of information.

Under Section 18(1)(e), the CIC's role is limited to inquiring into whether provided information was misleading or incomplete.

The court observed that the CIC improperly assumed Section 19(8) powers to issue directions despite the matter being a Section 18 complaint.

Citing State of Manipur, the court highlighted that the power to provide access to information is absent under the Section 18 complaint jurisdiction.

Since there was no prior order or appeal proceeding, the court found the CIC’s exercise of power to be a violation of the statutory mandate.

Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order.

The original RTI applicant was granted liberty to file a fresh application for information under the RTI Act, to be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Both writ petitions and pending applications were disposed of.