Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Pooja V. Shah - Appellant
Versus
Bank Of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2398 and 12912 of 2021
Decided On : 03-11-2023
RTI Act - Interpretation of Section 20 - [Writ Petitions] - [Section 20 of the RTI Act] - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 20 of the RTI Act, which allows penalties to be imposed on Public Information Officers for various reasons. The court emphasized that the imposition of penalty is mandatory, but the quantum of penalty is discretionary and can vary depending on the circumstances. The court also referred to a previous Division Bench judgment to support its interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitions were filed to challenge the orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) imposing penalties on the Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) of the Respondent Bank for not furnishing information in response to RTI applications. The Petitioner contended that the CIC should have imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- on each CPIO as the delay in providing information exceeded 100 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while Section 20 of the RTI Act mandates the imposition of penalty on CPIOs for various actions or inactions related to furnishing information, the quantum of penalty is discretionary and not mandatory. The court held that the amount of penalty can vary depending on the circumstances and the degree of malice or inaction on the part of the CPIOs.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of Section 20 of the RTI Act, specifically regarding the imposition of penalties on CPIOs for not furnishing information within the specified time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 20 of the RTI Act, emphasizing that while the imposition of penalty is mandatory, the quantum of penalty is discretionary and can vary depending on the circumstances. The court also relied on a previous Division Bench judgment to support its interpretation.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the issue of the quantum of penalty imposed on the CPIOs was fully covered by previous judgments. The court also noted that adequate punishment had been given to the CPIOs, who were made to pay the penalty from their salary.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - W.P.(C) 2398/2021 has been filed with the following prayers:
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to set aside the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by CIC,
b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to enhance/impose penalty on Respondent Bank CPIOs as per Section 20 (1) of RTI Act,
c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to pass order on Disciplinary action against Respondent Bank CPIOs as per Section 20 (2) of RTI Act,
d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to take on record written submissions tiled by Petitioner to ensure justice is not only done but should also appear to be done and to prevent miscarriage of justice,
e) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to grant compensation to Petitioner for loss & detriment suffered as per Section 19 (8) of RTI Act,
f) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing CIC to dispose of Second Appeals within a maximum period of 45 days as per law of precedence,
g) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ thereby directing Respondent to provide information under RTI Act 2005 as per the application dated 28.07.2017 filed by Petitioner,
h) Any other or further relief which this Honble Court deems fit in favour of Petitioner and in the interest of justice."
2. W.P.(C) 12912/2021 has been filed with the following prayers:
"a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to set aside the common order dated 14.01.2021 passed by CIC,
b. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to enhance/impose penalty against CPIO of Respondent Bank CPIOs in each of the 6 cases individually as per Section 20 (1) of RTI Act,
c. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to pass order on Disciplinary action against CPIO of Respondent Bank in each of the 6 cases individually as per Section 20 (2) of RTI Act,
d. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to take on record written submissions filed by Petitioner, to ensure justice is not only done but should also appear to be done and to prevent miscarriage of justice,
e. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ thereby directing to grant compensation to Petitioner for loss & detriment suffered as per Section 19 (8) of RTI Act,
f. Any other or further relief which this Honble Court deems fit in favour of Petitioner and in interest of justice."
3. The short question which arises for consideration in both the Writ Petitions is regarding the interpretation of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act').
4. Facts of the cases reveals that the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIC) by the Orders impugned herein has come to a conclusion that there was in action on the part of the CPIOs of the Respondent Bank in furnishing information to the RTI applications filed by the Petitioner herein. Resultantly, the CIC has imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on Mr. K. K. Gurnani (Rs.15,000/- vide order dated 14.01.2021 which is under challenge in W.P.(C) 12912/2021 and Rs.5,000/- vide order dated 15.06.2020 which is under challenge in W.P.(C) 2398/2021) and of Rs.10,000/- on Mr. Makhan Gopal Agrawal (Rs.5,000 vide order dated 14.01.2021 which is under challenge in W.P.(C) 12912/2021 and Rs.5,000/-vide order dated 15.06.2020 which is under challenge in W.P.(C) 2398/2021).
5. It is the contention of the Petitioner herein that a reading of Section 20 of the RTI Act mandates a penalty of Rs.250/- for each day till the information is furnished subject to the condition that the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees. According to the Petitioner since the delay in the present cases exceeds 100 days
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the imposition of penalty on CPIOs under Section 20 of the RTI Act is mandatory, the quantum of penalty is discretionary and can vary de....
Penalty and disciplinary recommendation under RTI Act Section 20 require persistent default without reasonable cause; institutional delays from workload and staff shortage not personal fault; biased,....
The Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has the power to impose a penalty as prescribed in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the penalty should be i....
The court emphasized the quasi-criminal nature of penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the need for authorities to provide cogent reasons for levying substantial fines.
Right to Information - Required fee and produce challan receipt - Section 7(3)(b) says about the details to be mentioned in intimation, including details of appellate authority, time limit etc.
Officers can only be penalized for information delays if they were in charge at the time of the request; newly appointed officers are not liable for prior delays.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
