Non-compliance with an Information Commission’s disclosure order must be pursued through a Section 18 RTI Act complaint.

The petitioner submitted an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) before the State Public Information Officer seeking information relating to 1484 No. Ambari Lower Primary School for the period 2012–2023.

The information was not furnished within the prescribed period, leading the petitioner to file a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.

During the pendency of the first appeal, the Headmaster demanded ₹50,000 and subsequently ₹15,000 towards the cost of supplying the information.

The First Appellate Authority restricted disclosure to records for 2021–2023 and directed that the petitioner be informed of the actual photocopying cost.

In the second appeal under Section 19(3), the Assam Information Commission held that the petitioner could inspect the relevant records for 2021–2023 and obtain photocopies on payment of the applicable cost; the Block Elementary Education Officer was directed to ensure compliance.

The petitioner alleged that the Headmaster thereafter refused to permit inspection despite his visits to the school.

He consequently approached the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of the Information Commission’s order.

The Information Commission objected that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy under Section 18 of the RTI Act.

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking enforcement of an order passed by the State Information Commission when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act

Whether the State Information Commission possesses jurisdiction under Section 18 of the RTI Act to inquire into a complaint alleging non-compliance with, or denial of access pursuant to, its earlier appellate directions

The Court applied Sections 6, 19(1) and 19(3) of the RTI Act concerning the filing of information requests, first appeals and second appeals.

Section 18(1) imposes a duty on the Information Commission to receive and inquire into complaints, including complaints by persons refused access to information, denied a response within the statutory period, charged unreasonable fees, or facing any other matter relating to access to records; Sections 18(3) and 18(4) confer civil-court-like powers and authority to examine records under the control of a public authority.

Section 19(8) enables the Commission, while deciding an appeal, to direct the public authority to take steps necessary to secure compliance with the RTI Act, whereas Section 20 permits penalty or disciplinary recommendations in appropriate cases.

Relying on Sri Sonadhan Chakma v. State of Assam & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 5132/2024, decided on 12 November 2024, the Court held that Section 18 provides a supervisory and enforcement mechanism enabling the Information Commission to inquire into complaints concerning non-compliance with its directions, and that a writ court should not ordinarily be converted into an executing forum for such directions.

The Court noted that the Information Commission had already finally disposed of the petitioner’s second appeal by directing the school authority to facilitate inspection of records for 2021–2023.

The petitioner’s subsequent grievance—that the Headmaster denied inspection—fell within Section 18(1), particularly the categories concerning refusal of access to information and other matters relating to obtaining access to records.

Under Sonadhan Chakma, the Commission could take cognizance of such a complaint and exercise its inquiry and supervisory powers under Section 18, including the powers specified in Sections 18(3) and 18(4).

Since this statutory remedy was adequate and efficacious, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for directly enforcing the Commission’s order.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a complaint before the Assam Information Commission alleging denial of access and non-compliance with the Commission’s order dated 29 October 2025.

The Commission was directed to consider and take cognizance of such complaint on its merits in accordance with law.