Understanding How Second Appeals Are Scheduled and Heard
One frequent concern among RTI applicants is the long pendency of second appeals before the Central Information Commission (CIC). Many applicants wonder why some matters are listed earlier, while their own appeals remain pending for months. This raises an important question: Does the CIC follow a strict first-come-first-served approach, or can certain cases be taken up out of turn?
In this article, we examine the legal position, the administrative practice of the CIC, and a specific case where an appellant questioned why her appeals were not being heard while later-filed appeals were being prioritized.
The Core Issue
Can the CIC lawfully give priority to certain second appeals, allowing them to be heard ahead of others?
The short answer is: Yes, but only in specific, defined circumstances.
The CIC follows a general rule of chronological listing, but its resolutions permit Information Commissioners to give priority in matters where urgency or public interest is demonstrably higher.
Case Study: Appellant Questions Out-of-Turn Hearings
Background
An appellant approached the CIC seeking information on:
- Why her second appeals remained pending
- Why appeals filed later were listed before hers
- Whether certain appellants were being given undue priority
She also alleged that her representative was prevented from appearing during one of the hearings and that her appeal was dismissed solely due to her absence.
What the FAA Stated
The First Appellate Authority clarified:
- Appeals are normally taken up on a first-come-first-served basis.
- However, as per the CIC’s internal resolution, priority may be granted in exceptional categories such as:
- Appeals filed citizens
- Cases involving infirm or disabled appellants
- Matters concerning larger public interest
- Time-sensitive or urgent public-grievance issues
- The appellant did not specify which appeals were given priority before hers, making her allegation vague.
CIC’s Observations During the Hearing
When the matter came up for hearing, the CIC noted:
1. No specific information was actually sought
The appellant did not request identifiable records. Instead, she asked the CIC to take action against unnamed PIOs and FAAs. Under RTI, the Commission is empowered to provide information, not adjudicate broad allegations.
2. The allegation of being denied representation was not supported
The Commission reviewed its own order and confirmed that:
- The appeal had been dismissed on merits, not due to non-appearance.
- There was no indication that her representative had been prevented from appearing.
3. No grounds for intervention existed
Since the appellant had neither requested specific information nor proved any irregularity in listing, the Commission found no basis for her grievances.
Outcome
The CIC rejected the appeal.
When Can CIC Hear Appeals Out of Turn?
While backlog is a persistent challenge, the CIC is permitted to prioritize cases in the following situations:
1. Senior citizens and infirm appellants
Where age or health makes delay unfair or impractical.
2. Cases involving larger public interest
Such as environmental matters, serious corruption issues, or systemic failures.
3. Time-sensitive or urgent public grievances
Where delay may defeat the purpose of the RTI request.
4. Directions from courts
High Courts and the Supreme Court may instruct the CIC to expedite certain matters.
These exceptions ensure that the Commission balances fairness with practical necessity.
Why Many Appeals Still Get Delayed
The CIC deals with thousands of pending second appeals at any time. As a result:
- Chronological listing is the default method
- Priority is granted sparingly and with justification
- Mere dissatisfaction with the pace of listing is not grounds for intervention
RTI is a legal process, and administrative constraints often dictate the speed of disposal.
Final Takeaway
The CIC does not arbitrarily pick which appeals to hear first. While the general rule is first-come-first-served, the Commission is empowered to prioritize:
- Senior citizens
- Infirm applicants
- Matters of public importance
- Time-sensitive issues
In the case discussed above, the appellant failed to specify any irregularity, sought no identifiable information, and made general allegations without evidence. The CIC therefore rejected the appeal.
Understanding how listing works helps RTI users set realistic expectations and frame their applications carefully to avoid unnecessary delays.
