Penalty under Section 20 RTI Act requires specific finding of mala fide intent or unreasonable delay.

The Petitioner, a Joint Director in the Urban Administration and Development department, challenged an order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 1).

The Commission had held the Petitioner liable as a "deemed Public Information Officer" (PIO) for failing to provide information requested in a 2016 application within the prescribed period and for delaying a reply to the Commission; consequently, a penalty of ₹10,000 was imposed.

The Petitioner argued that he was not the designated PIO at the time of the application (20.10.2016), the application was dealt with by another officer, and he was never impleaded or heard by the First Appellate Authority.

Respondent No. 2 (Municipal Corporation) argued that the information had been supplied and any delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions.

1. Whether the imposition of a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act is sustainable without a specific finding of mala fide intent or unreasonable delay directly attributable to the officer.

2. Whether the Petitioner could be held liable for delay when the information was eventually supplied and the delay was attributed to the COVID-19 lockdown.

The court applied Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which governs the imposition of penalties on Public Information Officers.

The court established that for a penalty to be legally valid under this section, the authority must record a clear and specific finding of "mala fide denial of information" or an "unreasonable and unexplained delay" directly attributable to the concerned officer.

the court emphasized that penal consequences require proof of intentional or deliberate inaction rather than mere administrative delay.

The Court observed that the Petitioner was not the designated PIO when the initial RTI application was filed.

It noted that while there was a delay in providing information, the information was ultimately furnished to the applicant.

The Court found the explanation for the delay—specifically the disruption of government office functions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdowns—to be "plausible and acceptable".

Most importantly, the Court highlighted that the Respondent Commission failed to record any categorical finding of mala fide conduct or deliberate intent by the Petitioner to withhold information.

In the absence of such findings, the Court determined that the statutory ingredients for invoking Section 20 of the Act were "conspicuously absent".

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 insofar as it imposed the ₹10,000 penalty.

No order as to costs was made.