RTI penalty is unsustainable absent a categorical finding of deliberate and mala fide information withholding.

The petitioner, Secretary of Gram Panchayat Sarvani, challenged an order dated 3 January 2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing a penalty upon him under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).

He contended that the Commission had imposed the penalty without recording a categorical finding that the failure to provide information was deliberate, conscious, and mala fide, as required by the statutory scheme.

The State Information Commission argued that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated a deliberate and conscious failure to supply the requested documents and that mala fide intent could be inferred from the record, even in the absence of a formal finding.

Whether a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act can be imposed without the State Information Commission recording a categorical finding, supported by reasons, that the Public Information Officer deliberately and mala fide withheld or delayed the information.

Whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Commission was legally sustainable in the absence of such an explicit finding.

The Court applied Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that the imposition of penalty or recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical and reasoned finding that the failure to provide information resulted from the deliberate and mala fide conduct of the Public Information Officer.

Mere presumption or inference by the State Information Commission, without a recorded finding supported by cogent reasons, cannot satisfy the statutory precondition for penalty.

The Court also relied upon the principles stated in the Division Bench judgment dated 12 June 2023 in W.A. No. 215 of 2020 and the order dated 10 August 2026 in W.P.C. No. 5304 of 2026, as cited by the petitioner.

The Court found that the Commission’s order did not record reasons or a specific finding establishing that the information had been withheld because of the petitioner’s mala fide intent, deliberate delay, or ill motive.

It rejected the argument that such intent could merely be inferred from the record, emphasizing that where the statute prescribes a condition for imposing penalty, that condition must be expressly addressed and supported by reasons in the order itself.

Since the necessary finding was absent, the penalty could not be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the order dated 3 January 2024 was set aside to the extent that it imposed penalty upon the petitioner, and the writ petition was finally disposed of.