RTI Act | Penalty Imposed On Public Information Officers For Delay In Reply Depends On 'Malice': Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Right to Information Act, 2005, only specifies the maximum limit of penalty to be imposed on Public Information Officers and the said amount may vary depending on malice and degree of inaction on the officials’ part in not providing the information.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said that even though Section 20 of the RTI Act stipulates a maximum penalty of Rs.250 per day to be imposed on the Public Information Officer, however, it does not mean that the maximum penalty has to be imposed on the official.

“What is mandatory is the imposition of penalty and not the quantum of penalty. The RTI Act only specifies the maximum limit of the penalty and not the minimum limit. It is nowhere mentioned that delay of each day will incur a penalty of Rs.250/-,” the court said.

Justice Prasad made the observations while dismissing two petitions moved by one Pooja V. Shah challenging the orders passed by Central Information Commission (CIC) concluding that there was inaction on the part of the CPIOs of Bank of India in furnishing information to her RTI applications.

The CIC had imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000 and Rs. 10,000 on two CPIOs respectively. It was Shah’s case that Section 20 of the RTI Act mandates a penalty of Rs.250 for each day till the information is furnished, subject to the condition that the total amount shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.

It was submitted that since the delay in the cases exceeded 100 days, maximum penalty of Rs.25,000 ought to have been imposed on each of the CPIOs. Shah further contended that there was no power with the CIC to reduce the amount of penalty which is fixed by the Statute.

Rejecting the plea, Justice Prasad said that Shah was trying to construe that it is mandatory on the part of the Public Information Officers to pay Rs.250 each day regardless of the degree of malice or inaction. The court said that such an interpretation cannot be sustained.

“Since the degree of the penalty will depend and differ upon the knowledge of the Public Information Officer and the reasons as to why the Public Information Officer could not furnish the relevant information the submission of the Petitioner that it is mandatory to impose a penalty of Rs.250/- per day on the Public Information Officers for not furnishing the relevant information cannot be accepted,” the court said.

Observing that the court was not inclined to decide on the quantum of the penalty imposed on the PIOs, Justice Prasad ordered:

“This Court is also of the opinion that adequate punishment has been given to the CPIOs who have now been made to pay the amount of penalty from their salary. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.”

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Ms. Hina Bhargava, Ms. Amrita Dhawan and Mr. Pankaj, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rahul Dubey, Mr. Srikanth Varma, Advocates

Title: POOJA V . SHAH v. BANK OF INDIA & Other Connected Matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1058

Click Here To Read Order