RTI Penalties Require a Reasoned Finding That Section 20 Conditions Are Met

The petitioner, a Public Information Officer, challenged the Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission’s order dated 16 July 2020 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The information sought concerned an old revenue case record that could not be traced. The petitioner relied on communications dated 24 February 2016 to the Collector and 25 July 2016 to the Record Keeper, which he said showed that he had taken steps to locate the record and had raised the issue with superior authorities.

The Commission’s order was challenged by a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Commission’s penalty order under Section 20(1) could stand where the petitioner had taken steps to trace the unavailable record but the order did not adequately address those steps or establish the statutory basis for the penalty.

Whether the non-availability of the old record, by itself, justified imposing the maximum penalty of ₹25,000.

Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 permits a penalty where the Public Information Officer’s failure falls within the circumstances specified by the provision; penalty is not automatic merely because information was delayed or not furnished. The authority must consider the officer’s explanation and record a reasoned finding establishing the relevant statutory basis, including absence of reasonable cause where applicable.

The Court also relied on Shailesh Kumar Yadav IPS v. Union of India and Others, Writ-C No. 27261 of 2007 (Allahabad High Court, 27 February 2026), and its discussion of Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, for the principle that each alleged default must be assessed on its facts and does not automatically attract a penalty.

The Court accepted that a PIO ordinarily cannot avoid statutory responsibility by attributing non-compliance to subordinate staff.

However, the petitioner had produced material showing steps taken to trace the record, and the Commission’s order did not adequately consider that material or clearly find that the failure was without reasonable cause or involved conduct contemplated by Section 20(1). In those circumstances, the missing old record alone did not establish a sufficient statutory basis for imposing the maximum penalty.

It quashed the Commission’s order dated 16 July 2020 imposing ₹25,000, directed that consequential recovery proceedings be dropped, and stated that any amount already recovered was to be dealt with in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.