Wrongful Denial of Information Under Sec 8(1)(h) RTI Act Doesn't Automatically Imply Mala Fides; CIC Must Judicially Assess Egregious Conduct Before Imposing Penalty: Delhi High Court - 2025-08-09

CIC Reaffirms Penalty on UIDAI Officials for Mala Fide Denial of RTI, Cites Continued Subversion Despite High Court Remand

New Delhi – The Central Information Commission (CIC), in a strongly worded decision, has upheld its earlier order imposing penalties on two senior officials of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for the mala fide denial of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. While complying with a Delhi High Court directive to reconsider the matter, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari concluded that the officials' conduct, both before and after the penalty, demonstrated a continued intent to subvert the law, justifying the initial imposition of penalties.

The Commission also highlighted that it lacks the statutory power to review its own final orders, as sought by the UIDAI officials in their representation.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from an RTI application filed on August 22, 2022, by Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer on deputation with UIDAI. Dr. Sahu sought official records, including note sheets and reports, related to a proposal for his premature repatriation from the authority.

The then Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, denied parts of the information, invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure if it would "impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders."

Dissatisfied, Dr. Sahu appealed to the CIC.

---

Initial CIC Findings and Penalty

In its initial order dated January 11, 2024, the CIC found the denial of information legally untenable. The Commission noted that the UIDAI officials failed to provide any justification for how disclosing information related to an employee's service matter would impede any investigation. The FAA's order was also criticized as being cryptic and non-speaking.

Consequently, the CIC issued a show-cause notice to both officials. After a hearing, the Commission, in its final order dated May 24, 2024, established mala fide intent on the part of the officials. It observed:

"The matter assumes higher gravity because both are looking after HR matter and one of them is CVO also. In view of the above mola fide on part of both officials... the Commission finds it a fit case for imposition of penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act."

A penalty of ₹10,000 was imposed on each official, to be deducted from their salaries.

---

Intervention by the Delhi High Court

UIDAI challenged the CIC's penalty order before the Delhi High Court. In its judgment dated April 17, 2025, the High Court observed that a misconceived application of an exemption under Section 8 does not automatically lead to an inference of mala fides . The Court held:

"Prima facie, it is untenable to conclude that the CPIO and the FAA acted malafide... The power conferred by CIC under Section 20 of the RTI Act (to impose penalties) is to be exercised judicially and not mechanically."

The High Court directed the CIC to reconsider the representation filed by the officials and assess whether their conduct was "egregious" enough to warrant a penalty.

---

CIC's Final Decision on Reconsideration

In its final decision dated August 7, 2025, complying with the High Court's directive, the CIC undertook a detailed review and came to a firm conclusion, upholding its initial findings.

Lack of Review Power: The Commission first established that under the RTI Act and binding legal precedents, it has no power to review or modify its own final orders. It cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in DDA vs. CIC (2010) , which held that the statute does not grant the power of review to the Commission.

Continued Mala Fide and Subversion: The CIC found that the actions of the penalized officials following the penalty order reinforced the finding of mala fides . The Commission noted several "shenanigans and subversive tactics": - The penalty was not deducted from the officials' salaries as directed, but paid via demand drafts purchased by one officer on behalf of both. - The officials paid the full amount in a single installment, contrary to the CIC's order of two equal installments, in what the Commission saw as an attempt to prevent the penalty from being officially recorded in their service records and Last Pay Certificate (LPC). - The organization (UIDAI), rather than the penalized individuals, filed the writ petition, which the CIC found to be a misuse of official position.

The Commission remarked:

"All these shenanigans and subversive tactics adopted by the penalized officers prima facie indicate continued mala fide... From this aspect also the attempt to subvert the system, deceit and mischief with mala fide intent and evade responsibility continues even today."

Final Verdict: Concluding that its initial order was "justified, fair and needs no modification," the Commission dismissed the representation. It directed that a copy of the decision be sent to the CEO of UIDAI to personally ensure the penalty is recovered from the officials' salaries as originally mandated, bringing the factum of penalty on record.