Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside RTI Penalties Against Panchayat Officials, Finding No Deliberate or Bad-Faith Default under Section 20񎟃

The petitions concerned penalty orders imposed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission on Gram Panchayat Secretaries/Public Information Officers under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

In the lead case, Respondent No. 4 sought copies of a Gram Panchayat’s Grant Register for financial years 2012–2019. The petitioner stated that he informed the applicant that the request was vague; the applicant’s first appeal was disposed of in his absence, after which he filed a second appeal. The Commission directed disclosure and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that order, contending, among other things, that no prior notice or hearing had been given and that the information had since been supplied. The Court heard the lead petition with the connected petitions because they raised common questions.

Section 20 of the RTI Act permits the imposition of a penalty or recommendation of disciplinary action where the statutory conditions are met. The Court held that penalty requires a categorical finding, supported by cogent reasons, that information was withheld because of the Public Information Officer’s deliberate and mala fide conduct; absent established mala fides or deliberate non-compliance, a penalty cannot be imposed.

The Court relied on Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, in support of the requirement that mala fide intent and deliberate non-compliance be established before imposing a Section 20 penalty.

Applying that standard, the Court found that the record disclosed no mala fide or deliberate failure by the Public Information Officer.

Because the Commission’s penalty could not stand without a finding of deliberate non-compliance or bad faith, the absence of such a finding rendered the penalty unsustainable. The Court’s conclusion rested on that deficiency; it did not separately determine the petitioner’s contentions concerning notice or the subsequent supply of information.

The Court set aside the impugned orders, insofar as they related to the petitioners.