Karnataka HC Sets Aside ₹25,000 RTI Penalty On MSIL PIO, Citing Applicant’s 62 Applications In Two Months

Respondent No. 1 applied under the Right to Information Act on 26 May 2022 for records concerning Government approval for creating the post of Director (Marketing) and the promotion order for that post

The petitioner sought the information from the concerned officer by an inter-office note dated 30 May 2022, received it on 26 July 2022, and furnished it to respondent No. 1 on 28 July 2022

After respondent No. 1’s appeal to the First Appellate Authority was rejected, he approached the Karnataka Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act

The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000, citing a delay of 240 days in furnishing the information

The petitioner challenged that penalty, arguing that its explanation—including that respondent No. 1 had filed 62 RTI applications over approximately two months—had not been properly considered

The Court referred to the Right to Information Act, including Section 19(3), under which respondent No. 1 approached the Commission after the First Appellate Authority rejected his appeal

It considered the Commission’s imposition of a penalty for delay in furnishing information, but did not identify a specific provision governing that penalty or cite any precedent.

The Court’s stated principle was that a penalty was not warranted on the circumstances before it absent gross negligence or inordinate delay, particularly where the petitioner’s explanation had not been properly considered

The Court found that the petitioner had provided an explanation in response to the show-cause notice, including that the information had been obtained from the concerned officer and forwarded to respondent No. 1, and that the same applicant had filed numerous other RTI applications

It held that the Commission had not considered that explanation in its proper perspective

Having regard to the circumstances, including the repeated applications and the fact that the requested information concerned an appointment rather than respondent No. 1’s own service, the Court concluded that the record did not establish gross negligence or inordinate delay sufficient to sustain the penalty