RTI penalties require a specific finding of deliberate or mala fide failure; delay alone is insufficient.

The petitioner, a Public Information Officer, challenged the order dated 20 December 2023 passed by the State Information Commissioner in Complaint Case No. C/1160/2021/Raigarh, whereby penalty was imposed for failure to furnish information within the prescribed period under the Right to Information Act.

The petitioner contended that the delay occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, circumstances beyond his control, and delayed communication of the first appellate authority’s direction. She further argued that there was no mala fide intention or deliberate withholding of information.

The respondents maintained that the petitioner had failed to provide the information within the statutory period and had also disregarded the direction of the first appellate authority, justifying the penalty.

Whether penalty could be imposed on the petitioner merely on the basis of delay in furnishing information, without a specific finding that the delay was deliberate, intentional, mala fide, or without reasonable cause.

Whether the impugned order imposing penalty was sustainable in light of the principles governing penalty proceedings under the Right to Information Act.

The Court applied the penalty principles under the Right to Information Act, particularly the requirement that imposition of penalty upon a Public Information Officer must be founded on a deliberate failure, neglect, or mala fide withholding of information, and not merely on proof of delay.

Relying on Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2012) 13 SCC 14, the Court held that the competent authority must examine whether the default occurred without reasonable cause and whether the conduct of the Public Information Officer warranted penalty.

The Court examined the impugned order and found that the competent authority had not recorded any specific finding that the petitioner deliberately or mala fide failed to furnish the information.

The order proceeded essentially on the fact of delay and did not establish that the delay was intentional or that the information had been deliberately withheld.

Applying the principles laid down in Manohar, the Court held that a finding of delay, without a determination of deliberate failure or absence of reasonable cause, was insufficient to sustain the penalty.

The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 20 December 2023 was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.