RTI penalty set aside as Chhattisgarh High Court requires a recorded finding of deliberate, mala fide information withholding

The petitioner, a Public Information Officer, challenged the order dated 21 June 2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. A-2952/2021/Raigarh, whereby a penalty was imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).

The petitioner contended that the Commission had imposed the penalty without recording a categorical finding that the failure to provide information was deliberate and mala fide.

The State Information Commission argued that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated a conscious and deliberate failure to supply the documents and that mala fide intent could be inferred from the record, even without a formal finding.

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

Whether the impugned order imposing penalty was legally sustainable in the absence of express findings regarding deliberate delay, mala fide conduct, or ill motive on the part of the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, which governs the imposition of monetary penalty upon a Public Information Officer for specified failures in discharging statutory duties.

The Court held that imposition of penalty, or recommendation of disciplinary action, requires a categorical finding that the failure to provide information resulted from a deliberate and mala fide act of the Public Information Officer, supported by cogent reasons.

Mere presumption or inference by the State Information Commission, without recording such a finding in the order, is insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement.

The Court also considered the principles relied upon by the petitioner from the Division Bench judgment in WA No. 215/2020 dated 12 June 2023 and the order in WPC No. 5304/2026 dated 10 August 2026.

The Court found that the State Information Commission had not recorded reasons or findings establishing that the information was withheld because of the petitioner’s deliberate or mala fide conduct.

It rejected the respondents’ submission that mala fide intent could be inferred from the record without an express finding, holding that the statutory precondition for penalty could not be replaced by a presumption or an unreasoned inference.

Since the impugned order lacked a categorical and reasoned finding of deliberate delay, mala fide intent, or ill motive, the penalty imposed under Section 20(1) was held unsustainable.

The petition was consequently finally disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.