Court Emphasizes Necessity of Proving Malafide Intent Before Imposing Penalty under Section 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005
In a significant judgment dated September 3, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., set aside a penalty imposed on a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The penalty of Rs. 25,000 was levied by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission on the petitioner, Ms. Radhika Sidar, for allegedly withholding information sought under an RTI application.
The case arose when Respondent No. 4 filed an RTI request on January 25, 2022, seeking detailed financial and administrative records related to Gram Panchayat Pachheda from the financial years 2014-15 to 2020-21. The petitioner, who was the Public Information Officer, was accused of not furnishing the information, leading to a First Appeal and subsequently a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission. During these proceedings, it was revealed that the RTI application was never served upon the petitioner, which she contended as the reason for the non-disclosure of information.
Despite the petitioner’s explanation and submission of a detailed reply highlighting non-receipt of the application, the State Information Commission imposed a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the ground of withholding information without reasonable cause.
The High Court, however, emphasized that Section 20(1) mandates a categorical finding of malafide intent or deliberate non-compliance by the Public Information Officer before imposing any penalty. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 13 SCC 14, which reiterated that a penalty under the RTI Act requires cogent findings proving deliberate and malafide withholding of information.
Finding no such malafide intent or deliberate failure on the part of the petitioner, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the penalty imposed was unsustainable in law and consequently quashed the impugned order dated November 7, 2023. The Court highlighted that mere failure to furnish information without a clear finding of malafide conduct cannot attract penalty.
This judgment underscores the need for Information Commissions and courts to carefully scrutinize the intent behind non-compliance before penalizing Public Information Officers, thereby balancing accountability with fairness in RTI proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 requires a categorical finding of malafide intent or deliberate non-compliance by the Public Information Officer. In the absence of such findings supported by cogent reasons, the penalty is unsustainable in law.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 20(1)
