PIO Radhika Sidar's RTI Penalty Quashed by Chhattisgarh High Court for Lack of Mala Fide

PIO Radhika Sidar's RTI Penalty Quashed by Chhattisgarh High Court for Lack of Mala Fide

Penalty Without Proof of Malice Set Aside

In a significant ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards for Public Information Officers (PIOs), the Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a ₹25,000 penalty imposed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act . Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed the petition of Radhika Sidar, the PIO of Gram Panchayat Pachheda , against the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission 's order dated November 7, 2023 .

How the Dispute Unfolded

The case originated from an RTI application filed by Akash Bairagi on January 25, 2022 , seeking details of achievements, financial statements, beneficiary certificates, and other records of Gram Panchayat Pachheda for the financial years 2014–15 to 2020–21. When the information was not provided, Bairagi filed a first appeal on March 15, 2022 , alleging refusal by the PIO. The First Appellate Authority failed to decide the appeal, prompting Bairagi to file a second appeal before the State Information Commission , which issued a show-cause notice to Sidar.

Sidar appeared and submitted that the RTI application was never served upon or received by her, due to which the requested information could not be furnished in time. Despite this explanation, the Commission held that information was withheld “ without reasonable cause ” and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act .

Petitioner's Plea: No Deliberate Withholding

Counsel for Sidar argued that the penalty was imposed in “complete disregard of the statutory procedure ” mandated under Section 20(1), as no finding of mala fide intent was recorded. It was contended that there was no deliberate act to withhold the information. In contrast, counsel for the State Information Commission defended the order, stating it was passed after due process , including a show-cause notice and a reply from the petitioner, and thus required no interference.

Court's Stand: Categorical Finding of Mala Fide Essential

The court examined the scope of Section 20 of the RTI Act and held that the imposition of penalty requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate and mala fide acts of the PIO. Without such a finding supported by cogent reasons , the penalty is unsustainable in law .

The judgment relied on the Supreme Court ’s decision in Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 13 SCC 14], which established the principle that mala fide intent must be firmly established before a PIO can be penalized.

Key Observations from the Judgment

“Under Section 20 of the RTI Act , the imposition of penalty or a recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate and malafide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a finding is recorded in the order supported by cogent reasons , the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law .”

The court further noted that in the facts of the case, there was “a complete absence of malafide or deliberate failure on the part of the Public Information Officer.”

The Final Word

Concluding that mala fide intent and deliberate non-compliance were not established, the court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned penalty order. The petition was finally disposed of with these observations. The ruling underscores that penalties under the RTI Act cannot be imposed mechanically; a clear finding of deliberate wrongdoing is a prerequisite.