Section 20(1) RTI penalty requires a recorded finding of deliberate and mala fide non-compliance.

The petitioner, a Public Information Officer, challenged the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal Case No. C-2322/2022/Raigarh, whereby a penalty of ₹25,000 was imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) for failure to furnish information within the prescribed period.

The petitioner contended that any delay was neither deliberate nor mala fide and that the essential requirements for imposing a penalty under Section 20(1) had not been established.

The State Information Commission defended the order, asserting that the petitioner had admittedly failed to provide the information within 30 days as required by Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

Whether the State Information Commission could impose a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act merely because the information was not supplied within 30 days, without recording a finding of deliberate or mala fide withholding of information?

Whether the penalty of ₹25,000 imposed on the petitioner was legally sustainable in the absence of cogent material establishing intentional or mala fide non-compliance?

The Court considered Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, which requires the Public Information Officer to furnish the requested information within 30 days.

It also applied Section 20(1), holding that imposition of penalty requires a categorical finding, supported by cogent reasons, that the failure to furnish information was deliberate and mala fide.

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 by the State Information Commission.

The Court acknowledged that the information had not been supplied within the period contemplated by Section 7(1), but held that delay or non-supply by itself did not justify the imposition of a penalty under Section 20(1).

The impugned order did not record any finding that the petitioner had intentionally or mala fide withheld the information, nor did it identify material demonstrating that the delay was deliberate.

Applying the principle laid down in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule, the Court concluded that the statutory preconditions for imposing the penalty had not been established.

The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 08.06.2023 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner was set aside.