The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be imposed merely due to delayed or incomplete information supply. The Court emphasized that such penalties, being quasi-criminal in nature, require a clear, reasoned finding of malafide intent or persistent default without reasonable cause - setting a critical precedent for Public Information Officers across public authorities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, T.A. Khan, served as Public Information Officer (PIO) in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Durg, when an RTI application dated 10.04.2019 was received seeking information related to forest department records. The applicant, respondent No. 4, Anil Agrawal, alleged that the information provided was incomplete and delayed, leading to a second appeal before the State Information Commission.
Key Facts
The RTI application was received on 10.04.2019
The petitioner promptly transferred the application to two concerned sections: Audit and Store, as required under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act
The Audit Section furnished 12 pages of relevant records on 25.04.2019, which were supplied to the applicant
The Store Section responded on 28.04.2019 stating that no such information was available on record
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the first appeal, explaining the steps taken and the non-availability of records
The First Appellate Authority, on 15.11.2019, did not find any malafide intent but directed that if further information could be traced, it should be provided, possibly by transferring the application elsewhere
The petitioner was transferred from the post of PIO to SDO Forest, Dongargarh, effective 01.12.2019, and thus had no further control over the file or subsequent compliance
Respondent No. 4 filed a second appeal before the State Information Commission on 18.01.2020
The State Information Commission issued notice to the then-current PIO, not the petitioner, and only later proceeded to impose penalty on the petitioner without re-noticing him
The impugned order imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 was passed on 09.05.2022
Procedural History
10.04.2019: RTI application received by petitioner as PIO
25.04.2019: Audit Section furnished 12 pages of information
28.04.2019: Store Section reported non-availability of records
15.11.2019: First Appellate Authority directed further traceability, without finding fault
18.01.2020: Second appeal filed by respondent No. 4
09.05.2022: State Information Commission imposed ₹25,000 penalty under Section 20(1)
22.07.2022: Writ Petition (WPC No. 3610 of 2022) filed before Chhattisgarh High Court
05.05.2026: Judgment delivered by High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner (T.A. Khan): Argued he acted diligently by transferring the application to custodial departments, supplied all available records, and was transferred before any further compliance was due. He had no control over records post-transfer and no malafide intent.
Respondent No. 2 (State Information Commission): Contended that the delay and incompleteness of response attracted penalty under Section 20(1), regardless of transfer or non-availability, as the PIO is ultimately responsible.
Respondent No. 4 (Applicant): Did not appear before the Court despite notice.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned penalty order dated 09.05.2022 and cancellation of all recovery proceedings initiated thereunder, on grounds of violation of natural justice and absence of statutory grounds for penalty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 20(1) of the RTI Act permits imposition of penalty against a Public Information Officer solely on account of delayed or incomplete information supply, without a specific finding of malafide intent or persistent default without reasonable cause.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (WA No. 215/2020) and Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 13 SCC 14 to argue that penalty under Section 20(1) is not automatic. He submitted that the petitioner had discharged his statutory duty under Section 6(3) by transferring the application, supplied all available records, and was no longer in charge when the Commission acted. The absence of any finding of malafide or persistent default rendered the penalty unsustainable. The Commission’s failure to afford a proper hearing after transferring liability to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent
The State counsel contended that the PIO is statutorily obligated to ensure complete and timely information, regardless of internal transfers. The fact that the information was not fully supplied within 30 days, even if due to non-availability, attracted penalty. The Commission, they argued, had applied its mind and acted within its statutory powers under Sections 18, 19, and 20.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework under the RTI Act, particularly Section 20(1), and the judicial interpretation provided in Nitin Singhvi and Manohar. It emphasized that the power to impose penalty is not mechanical but contingent upon a clear, reasoned finding of malafide denial, unreasonable delay, or persistent default without reasonable cause.
"The burden cast upon the Public Information Officer under the proviso to Section 20(1) is to establish that he acted reasonably and diligently; however, once such explanation is furnished and remains uncontroverted, the Commission cannot proceed to impose penalty in a routine manner."
The Court noted that the First Appellate Authority itself had not found any deliberate lapse, but only suggested further traceability - a clear indication that the issue was one of record availability, not officer misconduct. The petitioner had acted in accordance with Section 6(3), transferring the application to the custodial departments, and had no control over the records after his transfer on 01.12.2019.
The Court further held that the Commission’s failure to re-notice the petitioner after his transfer, and to record any specific finding regarding malafide intent or persistent default, rendered the order legally infirm. The judgment in Manohar was cited to reinforce that the word "shall" in Section 20(2) must be read as "may", and that negligence per se is not sufficient - there must be persistence and absence of reasonable cause.
"The penal provisions under the Act, being quasi-criminal in nature, must be invoked with due care and only in cases where the conduct of the officer is found to be contumacious or deliberately obstructive."
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s conduct was neither contumacious nor obstructive. He had acted diligently, and the non-availability of information was not attributable to him. The penalty, therefore, was imposed without legal foundation.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 09.05.2022 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was quashed and set aside. All recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the order were also cancelled. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Penalty Cannot Be Imposed for Non-Existent Records
Public Information Officers cannot be penalized for information that does not exist or is not held by their office
The burden shifts to the Commission to prove malafide or persistent default, not to the officer to prove innocence
Merely transferring an application under Section 6(3) and supplying available records constitutes reasonable cause
Transfer of Post Does Not Absolve Responsibility - But It Limits Liability
An officer transferred from the PIO role after initial compliance cannot be held liable for subsequent delays or non-compliance by successors
The Commission must assess liability based on conduct during the officer’s tenure, not post-transfer inaction
Any penalty must be tied to the officer’s actual period of responsibility
Natural Justice Requires Proper Notice and Hearing
The Commission must issue notice to the correct person at the correct time
If an officer is transferred, the Commission must re-notice the new PIO or reconsider liability
Failure to afford a meaningful opportunity of hearing vitiates the entire proceeding
