The imposition of penalties under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is contingent upon proving a malafide intent on the part of the Public Information Officer; in the absence of such intent, delays or procedural lapses, even if significant, do not warrant the imposition of penalties.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18(1) and Section 20 - Penalty proceedings - Malafide intent - Requirement of proof - The court noted that for the imposition of penalties under Section 20 of the Act, the presence of malafide intent on the part of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is a sine qua non. Penalty cannot be imposed for mere lack of diligence or delay if there is no proof of deliberate or malafide denial of information. (Para 7)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 6(3) - Transfer of RTI application - When multiple public authorities are involved, necessitated transfers and consultations may lead to valid delays, and such actions, if performed in good faith, do not constitute obstruction in the dissemination of information. (Paras 2, 5)

Facts of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI request seeking information regarding the 'Viksit Bharat Sampark' WhatsApp initiative. The application was transferred between several ministries and public entities. Upon the Commission's initial finding of non-responsive behavior and unexplained absence of the CPIO during the hearing, a Show Cause notice was issued under Section 20 to determine why a penalty should not be imposed.

Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that the CPIO had provided a reasonable explanation for the initial absence and the procedural delays caused by inter-ministerial consultations. Furthermore, the respondent subsequently provided the requested information, which demonstrated a bona fide intent.

Issues: Whether the CPIO should be penalized under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the alleged obstruction in the dissemination of information and unexplained absence during the hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of evidence demonstrating a malafide denial of information, the penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act cannot be sustained. Result : Penalty proceedings dropped; Noticee discharged.

Table of Content
1. issuance of show cause notice due to procedural lapse under rti act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. explanation regarding inter-ministerial transfers and bona fide intent to disclose information. (Para 4 , 5)
3. requirements for imposing penalties under the rti act, specifically the necessity of malafide intent. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 17.03.2024	FA : Not on record	Complaint : 30.04.2024
CPIO : Not on record	FAO : Not on record	Date of Decision : 08.07.2025

Date of Show cause proceedings: 28.04.2026

O R D E R

1. The Commission while hearing the captioned Complaint deemed it expedient to issue Show Cause notice to the CPIO on account of an apparent lapse on his part to furnish information. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.07.2025 is reproduced hereinafter:

“..Examination of the records of the aforementioned complaint reveals that the PIO, Digital India Corporation, Department of Electronics & Information Technology has neither sent any submission which indicates whether any response was sent to Complainant, nor has he justified denial of information and to top it all, PIO-the Digital India Corporation, Department of Electronics & Information Technology did not bother to attend the hearing to advance his arguments. The Respondent has also not made any endeavour to explain the cause of his absence during hearing.

In the given circumstances it is noted that the Applicant being aggrieved by denial of information has filed a Complaint u/s 18(1) of the RTI Act 2005, due to obstruction in the dissemination of information. Moreover the unexplained absence of the PIO, Digital India Corporation, Department of Electronics & Information Technology during hearing also vitiated the proceedings before this Commission by the wilful violation of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE to Shri Gaurav Takkar Chief Residential Scientist under Section 20 of the RTI Act, seeking his explanation within two weeks of receipt of this order, as to why maximum penalty to the tune of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand should not be imposed upon him.

The complaint is disposed off on these terms…”

2. An explanation/reply was received from Shri Gaurav Takkar, Chief Research Scientist vide letter dated 14.10.2025 and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

“..It is respectfully submitted:

1. That the Applicant i.e. Navin Kumar Singh filed the first RTI request, with the application no. MELAB/R/T/24/00034 on 22.03.2024, seeking detailed information about the government's "Viksit Bharat Sampark" WhatsApp initiative. The Applicant requested details about the initiative's start date, outreach mediums, the number of people contacted through different platforms, the source and extent of data collected including personal information, financial allocations for the program, suggestions received, data sharing practices, and any contracts awarded to private institutions for its execution. This request was transferred from the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology to MyGov on 22.03.2024 to provide the relevant information to the Applicant. The information sought under RTI involved consultation at various levels and collection and collation of data/inputs involving other agencies/stakeholders. Thereafter, the CPIO of MyGov transferred the RTI to BSNL under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act on 08.05.2024, since BSNL was engaged as the service provider for this initiative.

2. That the abovementioned RTI was subsequently transferred back to MyGov by BSNL on 15.05.2024, consequent to which the RTI Application number was changed to MELAB/R/T/24/00099. The response to the same was furnished to the Applicant by the CPIO of MyGov on 19.07.2024. The response furnished under this application clarified that the WhatsApp outreach initiative started on 15.03.2024 and that no expenditure had been incurred by the Ministry of Elec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6580

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONP R Ramesh, CommissionerJagbir Singh Dabas – AppellantVersusGNCTD – RespondentComplaint No. CIC/MOEIT/C/2024/618049/DICOR

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
P R Ramesh, Commissioner
Jagbir Singh Dabas – Appellant
Versus
GNCTD – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/MOEIT/C/2024/618049/DICOR