The Central Information Commission has reinforced the mandatory obligation of public authorities to respond to RTI requests without undue delay, emphasizing that silence or non-compliance with appellate orders is not merely procedural lapse but a substantive violation of the right to information. This decision underscores the enforceability of RTI provisions and the accountability of public officials who evade their statutory duties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Savitri Devi, filed an RTI application on 09.12.2024 seeking certified copies of water connection details for property C-295, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. The information sought included the year of approval, name of the connection holder, and meter number. The appellant sought this data to substantiate a property dispute, alleging that her deceased mother’s plot was illegally being served by a water connection registered under her sister’s adjacent property, C-296.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 09.12.2024: RTI application submitted to PIO, Delhi Jal Board (DJB)
- 10.01.2025: First Appeal filed due to non-response from PIO
- 13.01.2025: First Appeal transferred to SE(M)-11/FAA
- 06.06.2025: Second First Appeal filed and adjudicated by SE(C)-10/FAA, which ordered DJB to provide information within 15 days
- 28.02.2025: Second Appeal filed with CIC due to continued non-compliance
- 12.12.2025: Writ Petition filed in Delhi High Court seeking expeditious disposal of the Second Appeal
- 04.12.2025: Delhi High Court directed CIC to dispose of the appeal within two months
Relief Sought
The appellant sought disclosure of the water connection records to establish the illegality of a single connection serving two distinct properties. She also requested a survey report to verify the physical demarcation of the plots.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public authority’s failure to respond to an RTI application, despite a clear appellate order directing disclosure, constitutes a violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, and whether such inaction warrants imposition of penalty under Section 20.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s representative argued that the Delhi Jal Board’s persistent silence violated the mandatory duty under Section 7(1) to provide information within 30 days. The First Appellate Authority’s order dated 11.06.2025 was binding and had not been complied with. The appellant relied on CIC v. State of Haryana to assert that non-response is tantamount to denial of information and attracts liability.
For the Respondent
No representation was made by the Respondent. No reply was filed to the RTI application, no counter-statement was submitted to the CIC, and the PIO failed to appear at the hearing. The absence of any defense rendered the Respondent’s position legally untenable.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission held that the RTI Act is a rights-based statute designed to ensure transparency and accountability. The failure to respond to an RTI request, even after a binding appellate order, is not merely administrative negligence but a breach of statutory obligation. The Commission emphasized that Section 7(1) imposes a non-discretionary duty on Public Information Officers to provide information unless it falls under exemptions under Section 8. The absence of any exemption claim by the Respondent further strengthened the appellant’s case.
"The conduct of the PIO, EE(D)-103, DJB is found unacceptable, and devoid of any justifiable cause."
The Commission noted that the Delhi High Court’s directive to expedite the matter underscored the urgency of compliance. The PIO’s unexplained absence from the hearing and failure to file any written submission constituted contempt of the appellate process. The Commission invoked Section 20(1) to initiate penalty proceedings, holding that deliberate inaction or willful neglect in discharging duties under the RTI Act justifies disciplinary action.
The Verdict
The appellant prevailed. The CIC held that the PIO’s failure to respond to the RTI application and comply with the FAA’s order violated Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the requested information within two weeks and issued a Show Cause Notice for potential penalty under Section 20.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Response Is a Violation, Not an Oversight
- Practitioners must treat non-response to RTI applications as a legal violation, not a clerical delay
- A single appellate order mandating disclosure creates a binding obligation; failure to comply invites penalty proceedings
- Always cite CIC v. State of Haryana and Sukhdev Singh v. CIC to establish that silence equals denial
Penalty Proceedings Are Now Routine for Recalcitrant PIOs
- The CIC has signaled that Show Cause Notices under Section 20 will be issued routinely where PIOs fail to appear or file replies
- Practitioners should file applications for penalty under Section 20(1) alongside Second Appeals when there is clear non-compliance
- Document all attempts to obtain information - emails, letters, hearing notices - to build a strong record for penalty claims
High Court Intervention Validates Urgency of RTI Enforcement
- The Delhi High Court’s direction to the CIC confirms judicial recognition of RTI’s urgency
- Writ petitions seeking expeditious disposal of RTI appeals are now a viable strategy when delays persist beyond 60 days
- Courts will not tolerate bureaucratic inertia in matters of public transparency
