RTI penalty under Section 20 requires a categorical finding of deliberate and mala fide information withholding.

Respondent No. 4 filed an application dated 25 January 2022 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), seeking information relating to Gram Panchayat Pachheda, including achievements, goals, debit and credit statements, bank statements of funds, details of ODPF-declared villages, and certified copies of beneficiary utilisation certificates for the financial years 2014–15 to 2020–21. Alleging non-supply of information, he filed a first appeal on 15 March 2022 and thereafter approached the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission by way of a second appeal and complaint.

The Commission issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, who stated that the original RTI application had never been served upon or received by her. She filed a detailed reply on 30 October 2023. Nevertheless, by order dated 7 November 2023, the State Information Commission held that the information had been withheld without reasonable cause and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

Whether the State Information Commission could impose a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act without recording a categorical finding of deliberate and mala fide failure by the Public Information Officer?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s alleged non-supply of information justified the imposition of a penalty of ₹25,000?

The Court applied Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, which governs the imposition of penalty upon a Public Information Officer for specified defaults in discharging statutory obligations. It held that imposition of penalty or recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical finding, supported by cogent reasons, that the failure to furnish information resulted from a deliberate and mala fide act of the Public Information Officer.

The Court relied on Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, for the principle that penalty under the RTI Act cannot be sustained unless mala fide intent and deliberate non-compliance are firmly established.

The Court found that the petitioner had specifically asserted that she had neither received nor been served with the RTI application and had submitted a detailed explanation before the Commission. Although a show-cause notice had been issued and a reply received, the Commission’s order did not establish, through a categorical and reasoned finding, that the petitioner had deliberately or mala fide withheld the requested information.

Applying the principle in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule, the Court held that mere non-furnishing of information, without proof of deliberate and mala fide non-compliance, was insufficient to sustain the statutory penalty.

The writ petition was allowed, and the State Information Commission’s order dated 7 November 2023 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 was set aside. The petition was accordingly disposed of.