Appeals and penalties under the RTI Act

1. The first appeal: section 19(1), (2) and (6)

• Who. Any person who does not receive a decision within the time in section 7(1) or 7(3)(a), or who is aggrieved by a decision of the PIO.
• To whom. An officer senior in rank to the PIO in the same public authority, usually called the First Appellate Authority (rule 2(c) of the RTI Rules, 2012).
• Time. Within thirty days from the expiry of the period or from receipt of the decision. The officer may admit a later appeal if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause.
• Third party. Where the PIO has ordered disclosure of third party information under section 11, the third party may appeal within thirty days of the order, section 19(2).
• Disposal. Within thirty days of receipt, or within an extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from filing, for reasons recorded in writing, section 19(6).
• No fee for the first appeal is prescribed by the Act or the 2012 Rules for Central authorities.

2. The second appeal: section 19(3) to (5)

• Forum. The Central or State Information Commission.
• Time. Within ninety days from the date on which the first appellate decision should have been made or was actually received. Delay may be condoned for sufficient cause.
• Exhaustion. Under rule 10(2) and (3) of the 2012 Rules, the Central Commission will not consider a second appeal unless the appellant has used the first appeal: either the First Appellate Authority has passed a final order, or forty-five days have passed without one.
• Third party hearing. If the decision concerns third party information, the Commission must give the third party a reasonable opportunity of being heard, section 19(4).
• Burden of proof. In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial was justified is on the PIO who denied the request, section 19(5).
• Decision. Binding (section 19(7)), with the powers in section 19(8) described in the previous note: compliance directions, compensation by the public authority, penalty, or rejection.

There is no further statutory appeal. Section 23 bars suits and other proceedings against orders under the Act, but a party aggrieved by a Commission’s order may invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, and the matter may reach the Supreme Court, as most of the leading RTI cases did.

3. Penalties: section 20(1)

Where the Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, is of the opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause:

• refused to receive an application for information;
• not furnished information within the time in section 7(1);
• mala fide denied the request;
• knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;
• destroyed information which was the subject of the request; or
• obstructed in any manner the furnishing of the information,

it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till the application is received or the information furnished, subject to a total of twenty-five thousand rupees.

Two provisos: the PIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before a penalty is imposed; and the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently is on the PIO.

4. Disciplinary action: section 20(2)

Where the PIO has committed any of the same defaults without reasonable cause and persistently, the Commission shall recommend disciplinary action against him under the service rules applicable to him. The Commission cannot itself punish him departmentally; it recommends, and the disciplinary authority acts.

5. Protection: section 21

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding lies against any person for anything done in good faith under the Act or the rules. An officer who discloses in good faith under the Act is protected; this matters because section 22 gives the Act priority over the Official Secrets Act.

6. Problem: compensation from the PIO

An applicant, aggrieved by misleading and false information given by the PIO, complained to the State Information Commission and argued that, apart from a penalty on the PIO, he should get compensation from the PIO for the loss caused to him. Will he succeed? (April 2021)

Issue. Whether, on a complaint about misleading information, the Commission can order the PIO personally to compensate the applicant.

Law. Section 18(1)(e) allows a complaint by a person who believes he has been given incomplete, misleading or false information. Section 20(1) requires a penalty of Rs. 250 a day up to Rs. 25,000 where the PIO knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information without reasonable cause, after hearing him, with the burden on the PIO. Compensation is provided for only in section 19(8)(b), and it is to be paid by the public authority. Under Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011), the complaint route leads to inquiry and penalty; the information itself is obtained by appeal.

Application. If the Commission finds that the PIO knowingly gave misleading information, it must impose the penalty, which goes to the Government, not to the applicant. The Act nowhere makes the PIO personally liable to compensate the applicant. Compensation, if any, is ordered against the public authority, and only on proof of loss or detriment.

Conclusion. He will not get compensation from the PIO. He can get the penalty imposed on the PIO, a recommendation for disciplinary action if the default is persistent, and compensation from the public authority under section 19(8)(b) if he proves loss. To obtain the correct information he should pursue a first and second appeal under section 19.

How this is examined

“Explain the provisions relating to appeal and penalties under the RTI Act” (November 2021) and “Appeal under Right to Information” as a short note (December 2020). Write section 19 as a sequence with time limits, then section 20(1) and (2) with the provisos, and finish with the penalty-compensation distinction. The compensation problem has been set; answer it as above.