Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has provided a significant interpretation of the penalties imposed on Public Information Officers (PIOs) under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

The court's decision clarified that while the RTI Act specifies a maximum penalty of Rs. 250 per day for PIOs who refuse to receive an application or deny information with malicious intent, it is not mandatory to impose the maximum penalty on the officers.

While referring to Section 20 of the RTI Act, the bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized that the penalty amount would depend on the degree of malice and inaction exhibited by the PIO in failing to provide the requested information.

The judge said, "What is mandatory is the imposition of a penalty and not the quantum of the penalty. The RTI Act only specifies the maximum limit of the penalty and not the minimum limit. It is nowhere mentioned that a delay of each day will incur a penalty of Rs. 250/-. The petitioner is trying to construe that it is mandatory on the part of the public information officers to pay Rs. 250/- each day, regardless of the degree of malice or inaction. Such an interpretation cannot be sustained."

Court further emphasized that the degree of the penalty would also be contingent on the petitioner's knowledge and the reasons for the officer's inability to provide the requested information.

These observations came in response to a petition filed by RTI applicant Pooja V Shah, who challenged the orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) imposing costs ranging from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000 on several PIOs of the Bank of India.

Shah contended that a straightforward reading of Section 20 of the RTI Act mandates a penalty of Rs. 250 for each day until the information is furnished, with the condition that the total penalty shall not exceed Rs. 25,000.

Shah argued that since the delay in the present cases exceeded 100 days, the maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 should have been imposed on each of the PIOs, and the CIC had no authority to reduce the penalty amount set by the statute.

In its judgment, the court ruled that it would not decide the exact quantum of penalties imposed on the PIOs. It further stated that adequate punishment had been meted out to the officers, as they had been required to pay the penalties from their salaries.

Court also referenced a prior division bench judgment in Anand Bhushan v. RA Haritash, which had already settled the matter, providing additional weight to its interpretation.

Case Title: Pooja V Shah v. Bank of India