The Central Information Commission has reaffirmed that silence in response to an RTI application is not mere procedural lapse - it is a statutory breach that undermines the very foundation of transparency in governance. This order establishes that failure to reply within the mandated timeframe, coupled with non-appearance before the Commission, invites immediate penalty proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Manoj Das, filed an RTI application on 16 May 2024 seeking detailed information regarding fund allocations, tender processes, contractor payments, and documentation related to seed procurement schemes implemented by the National Seeds Corporation Ltd. The information sought included copies of challans, tender minutes, award letters, and seed certification records - materials critical to public oversight of public expenditure.
Procedural History
- 16 May 2024: RTI application submitted to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of National Seeds Corporation Ltd.
- No reply received: The CPIO did not respond within the statutory 30-day period.
- 4 July 2024: First appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
- No FAA order on record: The FAA failed to issue any order, and no documentation of the appeal’s disposal was submitted to the Commission.
- 30 August 2024: Second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission.
- 29 January 2026: Hearing conducted; respondent absent despite notice.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought disposal of the appeal with a direction for immediate disclosure of information and imposition of penalty on the CPIO for willful non-compliance with the RTI Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether failure to respond to an RTI application and non-appearance before the Information Commission constitutes a violation of Section 7(1) and Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, and whether such conduct justifies initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 20(1).
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant argued that the CPIO’s silence amounted to constructive refusal under Section 7(1), which mandates a response within 30 days. He relied on P. Srinivas v. CPIO, Ministry of Defence to assert that non-response is legally equivalent to denial. He further cited S. S. Srinivasan v. CPIO, Department of Posts to emphasize that the burden lies on the public authority to justify delay or non-compliance, not on the applicant to prove malafide.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear before the Commission, nor did they file any written submission. No defense was offered regarding the failure to reply, the absence of FAA order, or the non-appearance at hearing.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission held that the absence of any reply from the CPIO and the lack of any FAA order on record created a prima facie case of statutory violation. The Commission emphasized that Section 7(1) imposes a mandatory duty on public authorities to respond within 30 days, and failure to do so is not excusable absent compelling reasons communicated in writing.
"The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a powerful instrument designed to empower citizens, ensure transparency in governance, promote accountability of public authorities, and ultimately serve as a tool for delivering justice by enabling access to information that is vital for informed participation in democracy."
The Commission noted that the delay had exceeded one year, which is inconsistent with the Act’s objective of expeditious resolution. It further observed that the respondent’s non-appearance despite notice demonstrated a disregard for statutory obligations and the Commission’s authority. The absence of any documentation from the CPIO or FAA rendered the Commission unable to assess whether procedural compliance occurred, placing the entire burden of non-compliance squarely on the public authority.
The Commission concluded that Section 20(1) permits imposition of penalty for refusal, delay, or malafide denial of information. The conduct here - total non-response, non-filing of FAA order, and non-appearance - constituted a clear case warranting penalty proceedings.
The Verdict
The appellant prevailed. The Commission held that failure to respond to an RTI application and non-appearance before the Commission constitute gross violations of the RTI Act, 2005, and directed the CPIO to show cause within 15 days why a penalty of up to ₹25,000 should not be imposed under Section 20(1).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Response Is a Presumed Violation
- Practitioners must treat non-replies to RTI applications as actionable violations, not administrative oversights
- In appeals, cite Section 7(1) and Section 19(5) to establish prima facie breach
- No need to prove malafide intent - mere non-response suffices for penalty proceedings
FAA Non-Compliance Is Not a Shield
- If the FAA fails to dispose of the first appeal, the appellant may directly approach the Commission
- The Commission will not accept silence from the FAA as a valid procedural defense
- Public authorities must maintain complete records of all RTI-related correspondence
Penalty Proceedings Are Triggered by Systemic Negligence
- Repeated non-compliance by a public authority invites punitive action against the CPIO personally
- Absence at hearing is treated as waiver of defense and strengthens the case for maximum penalty
- Practitioners should routinely seek penalty under Section 20(1) when delays exceed 60 days without justification
