Allahabad HC Quashes ₹25,000 RTI Penalty Imposed Without Hearing, Finds SIC Skipped Every Step of Section 20 Mechanism

The Lucknow Bench set aside a State Information Commission penalty order against a Block Education Officer, holding that no notice, no reply opportunity, and no hearing had been given before imposing the penalty.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 6 July 2026 quashed a ₹25,000 penalty imposed by the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission on a Block Education Officer who also served as Public Information Officer, after finding that the commission had proceeded entirely without issuing any notice, allowing any reply, or providing any opportunity of hearing before penalising him. The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the entire mechanism prescribed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 had been given “a complete go by” in the case. The review petition filed by the officer against the penalty was dismissed by the SIC on 22 February 2024 without remedying the defect, and that order too was set aside as a consequence.

The Penalty and the Route to the High Court

The petitioner, Amarnath, was a Block Education Officer designated as Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. He could not furnish information on time to the information seeker, Respondent No. 2, citing lapses by his subordinates in keeping him informed of the requisite details. By the time the matter reached the SIC, the information had already been supplied on 12 January 2024.

Despite that, the SIC passed an order on 6 September 2023 in Complaint Case No. एस-6/275/सी/2023 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The penalty was the maximum permissible under that provision. The petitioner's counsel, Palak Sahai Gupta, told the court that the order was passed ex-parte — no show-cause notice was issued, no opportunity to explain the delay was given, and the petitioner was never heard.

Amarnath then filed a Review Petition, No. एस-6/152/पुन./2024, before the SIC, specifically bringing on record the fact that the information had been provided and that a reasonable cause existed for the earlier delay. The SIC dismissed the review on 22 February 2024. That left him with no remedy short of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which he did through Writ-C No. 4718 of 2026, seeking certiorari against both orders and a stay on recovery of the penalty.

Respondent counsel Shikhar Anand, appearing for the SIC, supported the impugned orders and submitted that they did not warrant interference.

What Section 20(1) Actually Requires

The bench examined Section 20(1) of the RTI Act closely. The provision empowers the Central or State Information Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000, where it is of the opinion that the Public Information Officer has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application, failed to furnish information within the time under Section 7(1), malafidely denied information, given incorrect or misleading information, destroyed requested information, or obstructed furnishing of information.

The provision contains two provisos. The first states that the PIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed. The second places the burden of proving reasonable and diligent conduct on the PIO.

The bench read the two provisos together and reached a clear structural conclusion: before a penalty can be imposed, the commission must first form an opinion on the basis of material on record; it can collect that material only after giving the officer an opportunity to prove diligence under the second proviso; and it must then also hear the officer on that material before imposing the penalty, as required by the first proviso. The court held that the word “opinion” in the section is not a personal belief but must be grounded in material from the record of the case.

The bench described the formation of opinion as “the triggering point for imposition of penalty,” and held that the opinion must be formed on the basis of proof provided or not provided by the erring officer after an opportunity has been given — not in the absence of any such opportunity at all.

How the Bench Reasoned on Natural Justice

Having found that no notice was issued, no reply opportunity was given, and no hearing was provided, the bench said the SIC had no material before it on which any opinion could lawfully have been formed. Absent that material and absent any hearing, the penalty order was structurally unsustainable.

The court also rested its reasoning on constitutional grounds. It held that every citizen's right to be heard before being condemned is an inalienable fundamental right protected under Article 21, and that a penalty carrying adverse civil consequences cannot be imposed without following the principle of audi alteram partem. The bench invoked the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269, for the proposition that civil consequences cannot follow without an opportunity of hearing.

The bench also relied on Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 690, where the Supreme Court held that where administrative decisions result in civil consequences, they are subject to the doctrine of equality and fair play under Articles 14 and 21 and must be tested on the anvil of natural justice. The court additionally drew on the Supreme Court's analysis in Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others, (2003) 4 SCC 557, where it was held that even an administrative order involving civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice, and that the expression “civil consequences” covers everything that affects a citizen in civil life, including material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages.

Applying these precedents to Section 20 specifically, the bench relied on Manohar v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 13 SCC 14, in which the Supreme Court held that before imposing a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the competent authority must give the PIO a reasonable opportunity of hearing and must examine whether a reasonable cause existed for the delay or non-supply of information. The bench found that the ratio of Manohar applied squarely to the facts before it.

Finding on the SIC's Conduct

The court recorded that no show-cause notice was issued to Amarnath prior to the penalty order, no opportunity was given to file a reply or explanation, no opportunity was given to prove that he acted reasonably and diligently, and there was therefore no material on record from which any opinion could have been formed. On top of that, no hearing was provided as mandated by the first proviso to Section 20(1).

The bench described the SIC's failure to even provide a hearing as adding “insult to injury.” When the petitioner then filed a review application specifically placing on record that the information had been furnished and that reasonable cause existed for the delay, the SIC dismissed even that application without rectifying the underlying procedural failure.

The court found the penalty order of 6 September 2023 unsustainable in law on the ground of violation of natural justice. It also held that once the penalty order was quashed, the review dismissal order of 22 February 2024 “losses its significance,” but for the sake of clarity it too was quashed and set aside.

Order

The Division Bench allowed Writ-C No. 4718 of 2026 in its entirety. The order dated 6 September 2023 imposing a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20 of the RTI Act, and the order dated 22 February 2024 dismissing his review petition, were both quashed and set aside. No order as to costs was made.