RTI penalty requires a finding of deliberate or mala fide failure; delay alone is insufficient.

The petitioner, Secretary/Public Information Officer of Gram Panchayat Jhapeli, challenged the order dated 16 May 2024 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 for failure to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 within the prescribed period.

She contended that no proper show-cause notice had been issued, that the information had subsequently been furnished, and that the authority had not recorded any finding that the delay was mala fide, deliberate, or intentional.

The State Information Commission contended that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of hearing and that a show-cause notice had been issued.

It was undisputed that the requested information had ultimately been supplied to and accepted by the information seeker.

The High Court examined whether the penalty could be sustained merely on the basis of delay in furnishing the information.

Whether a penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 could be imposed merely because of delay in furnishing information, without a specific finding that the Public Information Officer deliberately, intentionally, or mala fide failed to provide the information?

Whether the penalty order was sustainable when the requested information had subsequently been furnished and accepted by the information seeker?

The Court applied Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which govern the imposition of penalty and disciplinary action against a Public Information Officer for specified defaults in performing statutory duties.

The Court relied on Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, which requires the competent authority to examine whether the failure was deliberate or negligent, whether it occurred without reasonable cause, and whether the conduct of the Public Information Officer justified the imposition of penalty.

Mere delay, without a specific finding of intentional, deliberate, or mala fide withholding of information, is insufficient to sustain a penalty under Section 20.

The Court found that the impugned order proceeded essentially on the fact of delay and did not contain a categorical finding that the petitioner had deliberately, intentionally, or mala fide withheld the information.

Although the respondents asserted that the petitioner had received a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing, the authority had failed to record the necessary finding regarding deliberate failure or absence of reasonable cause, as required by the principles laid down in Manohar.

The subsequent furnishing and acceptance of the information was also a relevant circumstance that the authority ought to have considered while determining whether the delay resulted from deliberate or mala fide conduct.

Consequently, the penalty could not be sustained merely because the information was supplied beyond the prescribed period.

The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 16 May 2024, insofar as it imposed the penalty upon the petitioner, was quashed.

No order as to costs was made.