Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Rs 25,000 RTI Penalty Imposed on PIO Without Mala Fide Finding
The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act cannot stand unless deliberate and mala fide intent of the Public Information Officer is firmly established.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has set aside a Rs 25,000 penalty that the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposed on a Public Information Officer (PIO) under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, allowed the writ petition filed by Radhika Sidar, who served as PIO of Gram Panchayat Pachheda in District Raigarh. The court found a complete absence of any finding of mala fide or deliberate failure on her part, and held that without such a categorical finding supported by cogent reasons, the penalty was unsustainable in law.
The RTI Application and Proceedings Before the Commission
Respondent No. 4, Akash Bairagi, filed an application dated 25 January 2022 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act seeking information relating to Gram Panchayat Pachheda. The information sought covered achievements, goals, debit and credit account statements, bank statements of funds, a list of ODPF declared villages under the Gram Panchayat, and certified copies of beneficiary utility certificates for the financial years 2014–15 to 2020–21.
When no information was provided, Akash Bairagi filed a First Appeal on 15 March 2022 before the First Appellate Authority, alleging that the petitioner had refused to furnish the information. He also filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, contending that the First Appellate Authority had failed to pass an order on the appeal. Dissatisfied with the continued non-disposal of the First Appeal, he filed a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission, registered as Second Appeal Case No. C/2215/2022/Raigarh.
The petitioner submitted that she came to know about the pendency of these proceedings only at a later stage. By order dated 18 January 2023, the Commission issued a show-cause notice calling for a reply from her. She appeared before the Commission and stated that the RTI application had never been served upon or received by her, which was why the requested information could not be furnished in time. She submitted a detailed reply on 30 October 2023 explaining the non-receipt.
The State Information Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 7 November 2023, held that information had been withheld without reasonable cause and imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The Legal Issue: What Section 20(1) Requires Before a Penalty Can Be Imposed
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, argued that the Commission had imposed the penalty in complete disregard of the statutory procedure under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. His core submission was that the Commission had not recorded any finding of mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner. She had committed no deliberate act to withhold the information sought.
Counsel for Respondent No. 1, the State Information Commission, Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, submitted that the impugned order was passed after a show-cause notice was issued and a reply received, and therefore did not warrant interference by the court.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Prasad examined the requirements of Section 20 of the RTI Act. The court held that imposition of a penalty or recommendation of disciplinary action under that provision requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate and mala fide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a finding is recorded in the order, supported by cogent reasons, the penalty is unsustainable in law.
The court observed that there was a complete absence of mala fide or deliberate failure on the part of the petitioner as PIO. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14, which the court described as having settled the principle that mala fide intent and deliberate non-compliance must be firmly established by the State Information Commission before a penalty can be sustained.
The mere fact that a show-cause notice was issued and a reply received — the basis on which the Commission defended its order — was not treated by the court as sufficient to sustain the penalty. What the statute demands, in the court's reading, is not just procedural compliance in issuing notice, but a substantive finding on the mental element of the PIO's conduct. That finding was absent from the Commission's order of 7 November 2023.
Outcome
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed WPC No. 2353 of 2024 and set aside the impugned order dated 7 November 2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in Second Appeal No. C/2215/2022/Raigarh. The Rs 25,000 penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was quashed. The petition was finally disposed of on 3 September 2026.