RTI penalty requires a finding of deliberate or mala fide failure to disclose information.

The petitioner, functioning as the Public Information Officer-cum-Secretary of Gram Panchayat Pahariya, challenged the orders dated 29 March 2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Appeal Nos. SA/A/1915/2020 and SA/A/1935/2020, insofar as they imposed a penalty upon him for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act.

The petitioner contended that the Commission had not recorded a finding that the delay was deliberate, intentional, mala fide, or without reasonable cause.

The State and the Information Commission defended the penalty on the ground that the information had not been supplied within the prescribed period.

It was undisputed that the information had subsequently been furnished to the information seeker, though belatedly.

Whether a penalty could be imposed upon the Public Information Officer merely because the information was furnished belatedly, without a specific finding that the failure was deliberate, intentional, mala fide, or without reasonable cause?

Whether the impugned orders dated 29 March 2023, insofar as they imposed a penalty upon the petitioner, were legally sustainable?

The Court applied the penalty principles under the Right to Information Act, particularly the requirement that penal action against a Public Information Officer must be founded on a deliberate or negligent failure to perform the statutory obligation and cannot rest solely on proof of delay.

Relying on Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra, (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 justified the imposition of penalty.

Mere delay, in the absence of a finding that the information was intentionally or mala fide withheld, is insufficient to sustain the penalty.

The Court found that the State Information Commission’s orders proceeded essentially on the fact of delay and did not contain any specific finding that the petitioner had deliberately, intentionally, or mala fide withheld the information.

Since the information had ultimately been furnished, that circumstance was relevant to determining whether the delay resulted from deliberate withholding or other culpable conduct.

Applying the principle in Manohar, the Court held that the absence of a finding regarding deliberate or mala fide failure, or failure without reasonable cause, rendered the penalty unsustainable merely on the basis of delayed disclosure.

The application for condonation of delay in payment of process fee was dismissed as withdrawn, and no order as to costs was made.