CIC Imposes Penalty Under Section 20(1) of RTI Act for Procedural Impropriety and Non-Compliance: Indian Army Case - 2026-06-06

Accountability under the Scanner: CIC Penalizes Army CPIO for Procedural Lapses

In a firm reaffirmation of the statutory obligations under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 on the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) at the Station Headquarter in Joshimath. The ruling, delivered by Information Commissioner Sanjeev Kumar Jindal, follows a protracted battle between a retired Army officer, Col. Rajesh Tandon, and the military administration over the disclosure of official records.

The Backdrop: A Struggle for Transparency

The dispute originated from an RTI application filed by Col. Rajesh Tandon on March 4, 2024. He sought certified copies of various documents related to his contractual engagement, audit objections, and administrative communication regarding the ECHS (Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme) Polyclinic in Karanprayag.

When the CPIO, HQ Uttarakhand Sub Area, transferred the request to the Station Headquarter, the subsequent replies denied access to several documents, citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a), (d), (e), and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the non-transparent handling of his request—including the failure to provide proper certification—Col. Tandon elevated the matter to the appellate level and eventually to the CIC.

Arguments: Security vs. Statutory Duty

During the proceedings, the Appellant argued that the denials were "vague, mechanical, and without proper justification," and that the documents provided were not duly authenticated as required by Section 2(j)(ii) of the RTI Act.

The Respondent, represented by Col. Rajiv Bansal, defended the actions by citing security sensitivities—noting that the Joshimath region lies close to the Indo-China border—and arguing that internal communications held in a fiduciary capacity were privileged. However, much of the respondent's defense was undermined by their own procedural missteps, including failure to appear at initial hearings and the unilateral withdrawal of previously filed written submissions without informing the Commission.

The Legal Analysis: Sanctity of Quasi-Judicial Process

The core of the Commission’s decision focused on the respondent's conduct during the appeals process. The CIC took particular umbrage at the "unilateral cancellation/withdrawal" of written submissions from March 2026.

The Commissioner clarified that once submissions are entered into a quasi-judicial forum, they cannot be modified or withdrawn without the Commission’s leave. By engaging in such conduct, the CPIO, the Commission noted, had undermined the sanctity of the record and delayed the administration of justice.

Key Observations

The Commission delivered a stinging critique of the CPIO’s handling of the case:

• On Procedural Impropriety: "The act of cancelling the written submissions without any formal intimation to the Commission reflects procedural impropriety and lack of due diligence in the conduct of proceedings."
• On Transparency: "The Commission... notes that the conduct of the respondent CPIO, Stn HQ Joshimath, in the present matter reflects lack of due diligence in discharge of statutory obligations cast under the RTI Act, 2005."
• On Accountability: "The Commission is satisfied that the respondent CPIO... is liable for action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005."

The Final Order and Its Implications

Finding the CPIO in violation, the CIC invoked Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, directing a personal penalty of ₹5,000 to be recovered from his salary. The Commission further ordered the CPIO to provide a revised, point-wise reply to the appellant, including certified copies of all disclosable records, within seven days.

This decision serves as a significant precedent for officials handling RTI requests. It emphasizes that administrative convenience and internal military sensitivity do not absolve officers from the strict procedural requirements of the transparency law. For the Indian Army and other government departments, the ruling is a reminder that the CIC maintains a low tolerance for procedural obfuscation, and that accountability remains the cornerstone of the RTI mechanism.