Compensation under RTI Act requires specific enquiry and determination of actual loss or detriment.

The Petitioner (Ministry of Railways) challenged two orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

By an order dated 12.04.2018, the CIC directed the Petitioner to pay ₹10,000 as "compensation" to the Respondent for delays in furnishing information under the RTI Act

Subsequently, on 29.10.2018, the CIC rejected a review application and imposed an additional penalty of ₹5,000 for the non-payment of the previously directed compensation

The Respondent was represented by an Amicus Curiae as they did not appear before the High Court

Whether the CIC can award compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act without conducting an enquiry or finding a specific loss suffered by the applicant

Whether a penalty can be imposed under Section 20 of the RTI Act specifically for the non-payment of a prior compensation order

The Court applied Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which empowers the Commission to require a public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered

Relying on *NTPC Ltd. v. Mohd. Samad Khan* (2010:DHC:1362), the Court held that compensation is only payable for loss "on account of the denial of information" and requires a factual determination of the precise loss

Further, the Court applied Section 20 of the RTI Act, which mandates that penalties be imposed only for specific defaults such as refusal to receive applications, malafide denial, or knowingly giving incorrect information, and requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard

The Court observed that the CIC failed to conduct any enquiry to determine the "precise loss" caused to the Respondent due to the delay

Citing established precedents including *PIO Tihar Jail v. Om Prakash Gandhi* and *Directorate of Higher Education v. CIC*, the Court reasoned that since the compensation was not based on a calculation of specific loss, the order was legally unsustainable

Regarding the second order, the Court found that the ₹5,000 penalty was imposed solely for the failure to pay the initial (and flawed) compensation

Since the underlying compensation order was invalid, the penalty stemming from its non-payment could not stand

The Court held that compensation under the RTI Act cannot be granted at a whim without a finding on the extent of actual loss suffered

Any amount deposited by the Petitioner was ordered to be refunded

However, the Court granted liberty to the Respondent to seek a penalty under Section 20 before the CIC specifically for the "delayed furnishing of information," as the CIC had already rendered findings regarding said delay