RTI penalty requires a finding of deliberate or mala fide withholding of information.

The petitioner, a Divisional Forest Officer and former Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Forest Division, Bijapur, received an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) from Respondent No. 2.

The request was denied on the ground that it was framed in an inquisitive/interrogatory manner and was not a proper request for information.

Instead of filing a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, Respondent No. 2 directly approached the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission under Section 18, alleging non-supply of information.

During the proceedings, the Commission directed the petitioner to show cause why a penalty of ₹25,000 should not be imposed under Section 20(1), and also referred to disciplinary action under Section 20(2).

The Commission subsequently imposed the ₹25,000 penalty by order dated 15 December 2023 in Complaint Case No. C/513/2023/Bijapur.

1. Whether a person aggrieved by non-supply or refusal of information could directly invoke the State Information Commission’s complaint jurisdiction under Section 18 of the RTI Act without first pursuing the statutory appellate remedy under Section 19(1)

2. Whether the information sought, being inquisitive or interrogatory in nature, was information that the PIO was legally required to provide under the RTI Act

3. Whether the Commission could impose the penalty under Section 20(1) without recording a finding of deliberate or mala fide withholding of information and without satisfying the statutory requirements for penalty

The Court distinguished the complaint jurisdiction under Section 18 of the RTI Act from the appellate mechanism under Section 19, holding that a person aggrieved by a PIO’s decision or non-supply of information must ordinarily pursue the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority and thereafter the second appeal before the Information Commission.

Relying on Goa Cricket Association v. State of Goa and Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai v. Rui Ferreira , the Court held that Section 18 is not ordinarily a substitute for the statutory appellate remedy where the grievance concerns refusal or non-supply of information.

Under Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer , an applicant is entitled to existing records such as opinions, advice, circulars and orders, but cannot demand explanations as to why such decisions were taken.

Section 20’s penal provisions must be applied cautiously, and, in light of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra , penalty requires a finding of deliberate or mala fide non-compliance; a reasonable explanation for the PIO’s conduct militates against penalty.

The Court found that Respondent No. 2’s grievance was essentially against the refusal or non-supply of information, for which Section 19 provided a complete appellate remedy.

By directly filing a complaint under Section 18 without approaching the First Appellate Authority, Respondent No. 2 bypassed the statutory appellate structure.

The Court also accepted the legal distinction between furnishing existing information and answering interrogatory demands seeking reasons or explanations, as recognized in Khanapuram Gandaiah .

Further, the Commission imposed the penalty without recording that the petitioner had deliberately or mala fidely withheld information, although such a finding was necessary before invoking Section 20.

Accordingly, the penalty order failed both because the matter was entertained through the inappropriate procedural route and because the statutory prerequisites for penal action were not established.

The order dated 15 December 2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.