Information Seeker Has No Locus Standi In Penalty Proceedings Against Public Information Officer U/S 20 Of RTI Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that an information seeker has no locus standi in the penalty proceedings initiated against a Public Information Officer, under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.Section 20 states that the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC) has the powers to impose a penalty on the Public Information Officer...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that an information seeker has no locus standi in the penalty proceedings initiated against a Public Information Officer, under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Section 20 states that the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC) has the powers to impose a penalty on the Public Information Officer (PIO), while deciding on a complaint or a second appeal.
As per the provision, the penalty can be imposed, if the PIO refuses to receive an application and does not furnish the requested information within 30 days of receiving the application.
“In the opinion of this Court, the formation of opinion under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act is in the exercise of supervisory powers of CIC and not in the exercise of the adjudicatory powers. This Court is also of the view that the information seeker has no locus standi in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act,” a division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
The bench dismissed the appeal filed by an RTI applicant against dismissal of his petition and review petition seeking imposition of penalty on the officials under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing incorrect replies to his RTI applications.
The dismissal was on the grounds that true and correct information sought by the applicant had already been provided to him during the pendency of the writ petition and appropriate action was taken as departmental action was initiated against three erring officials.
The applicant stated that the officials not only provided wrong and incorrect information, but also caused inordinate delay of three years in providing correct information or reply to him.
Dismissing the appeal, the court said that the CIC was well entitled in its discretion not to direct imposition of monetary penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, especially, when the information sought by the RTI applicant had been directed to be provided to him.
“Keeping in view the aforesaid, present appeal along with the application is dismissed. No order as to costs,” the court said.
Title: SH SUNNY SACHDEVA v. ACP NORTH RTI CELL AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 823