CIC Imposes ₹25,000 Penalty on MCD Official for RTI Non-Compliance: Central Information Commission - 2026-06-06

Transparency Vacuum: CIC Penalizes MCD Over Stalled Stray Dog Data

In a landmark decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on a Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Keshav Puram Zone, for systemic failure to disclose information regarding the Animal Birth Control (ABC) program. Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, while presiding over the matter, emphasized the "mala fide intent" behind obstructing information pertinent to public health and safety.

The Anatomy of a Negligent Process

The case stems from an RTI application filed on December 29, 2022, by Akshay Kumar Malhotra. The applicant sought granular data on the MCD’s alliance with Animal Welfare Organizations (AWOs), records of stray dog captures, sterilization statistics, and the functioning of the Dog Control Cell.

Remarkably, the application and the subsequent First Appeal were met with total silence. It was only during the second appeal before the Commission in April 2025 that the Respondent finally provided a partial reply. During these proceedings, the Complainant also alleged that his personal contact details, sourced via the MCD-311 portal, were leaked to third-party NGOs and contractors, resulting in harassment and intimidation.

Competing Narratives

The Appellant requested the Commission to enforce accountability, arguing that the lack of transparency in the ABC program hides a conflict of interest—where the failure to control stray animal populations benefits both the contractors and the department.

The Respondent, Dr. Ravish Kumar Kasana, blamed the administrative abyss: he claimed the RTI portal was managed by different departments and his office never received the initial request. He further argued that he was not in charge at the time of the initial filing. However, the Commission found these explanations "wholly unsatisfactory" and lacking in documentary proof of remedial action taken to trace the missing application.

The Legal Imperative of Proactive Disclosure

The Commission’s decision serves as a sharp reminder of the mandate under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Citing the Supreme Court’s directive in Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India , the CIC reiterated that public authorities have a statutory duty to provide information suo moto to foster transparency.

The Commission noted that the information sought—regarding the use of public funds for sterilization and immunization—should have been readily accessible to the public, preventing the need for individual RTI litigations.

Key Observations

• On Mala Fide Obstruction: "It is only during the hearing that a copy of reply was shared with the Appellant. It shows mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act."
• On Statutory Obligation: "The Commission finds the explanation [for non-compliance] wholly unsatisfactory and unsupported by any documentary evidence."
• On Proactive Disclosure: "Notwithstanding with the above order, the concerned PIO... is directed to show-cause in writing as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act."
• On Citizen Rights: "Upfront public disclosure of the information... would certainly facilitate regular, punctual and diligent monitoring of the Animal Birth Control measures."

Final Verdict: A Path to Accountability

The Commission’s final order is twofold: 1. Financial Accountability: A penalty of ₹25,000 was imposed on Dr. Ravish Kumar Kasana, to be recovered from his salary. Additionally, the MCD has been ordered to pay ₹10,000 in compensation to the Appellant for the loss, detriment, and harassment he sustained over three years of litigation. 2. Systemic Reform: The Commissioner of the MCD is tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of Section 4(1)(b) compliance. Within 90 days, the department must update its official website with all relevant data regarding the ABC program, including payments, contracts, and complaint resolution records.

This decision marks a significant turn for transparency in public dog-control mechanisms, shifting the onus back onto authorities to operate in the clear light of day rather than behind the veil of administrative inertia.