Under the RTI Act, the Central/State Information Commission (“CIC/SIC”) has the power to impose personal penalty[1] on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in case, the CPIO:
- Without reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI application
- Failed to provide information within 30 days of the receipt of the RTI Application
- Malafidely denied the RTI request
- Knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information
- Destroyed the requested information
- Obstructed furnishing of information in any manner
Amount of penalty:
The CIC/SIC has the power to impose a penalty of INR 250 each day till the RTI application is received or information is furnished by the CPIO. The total amount of such a penalty however, is not to exceed INR 25,000.
Penalty not to be imposed merely because CPIO’s views are incorrect:
Supreme Court has held that the CIC/SIC can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority[2]. Delhi High Court has held that, it can happen that the CPIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the CPIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. Only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the CPIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty can be imposed on the CPIO[3].
Opinion has to be formed:
The division bench of Allahabad High Court has held that for imposing penalty, an opinion has to be formed that the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished the information within the time specified. The formation of the opinion has to be on the basis of objective consideration/relevant material and should also disclose the materials on the basis of which it is formulated[4].
CPIO to be heard:
The RTI Act requires that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore showcaused by CIC before any decision to impose penalty on him is taken.
Burden of proof on the CPIO:
The RTI Act provides that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the CPIO.
Disciplinary Action can also be recommended:
Along with the imposition of penalty, CIC can also recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO under the service rules applicable to him[5].
Conclusion:
Since, the CPIO has the primary responsibility to provide information under the RTI Act, he alone has been made liable to penalty under the RTI Act, however, if there is no malafide intent on his part, rather he acted reasonably and diligently on receiving the RTI request, then penalty would normally not be imposed on him. It would also not be imposed when the CPIO genuinely and bonafidely arrived at the conclusion that the information sought by the RTI Applicant cannot be provided under the RTI Act.
[1] Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005
[2] Union of India vs Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359
[3] Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., ILR (2012) 6 Del. 499
[4] Kalp Nath Chaubey vs. Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission & Ors., (2010) 79 ALR 359
[5] Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005
39 Comments
Comments are closed.