2012 (8) TMI 918 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of penalty provisions under u/s 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission.

The judgment addressed the issue of whether the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has the power to impose penalties other than those prescribed in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The State Chief Information Commissioner imposed a penalty of &8377; 1,500/- for a delay of 14 days in supplying information. However, the High Court clarified that under Section 20 of the Act, if the Commission concludes that information was not supplied within a reasonable time without cause, a penalty of &8377; 250/- per day can be imposed, not exceeding &8377; 25,000/-. The Court emphasized that the penalty must be imposed at the fixed rate and not arbitrarily. In this case, the penalty was enhanced to &8377; 3,500/- for a 14-day delay, with the respondent directed to deposit the increased amount in the Government treasury within two weeks.

The judgment highlighted the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which outlines the circumstances under which penalties can be imposed by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission. It noted that penalties can be imposed if the Public Information Officer has unreasonably refused to receive an application, not furnished information within the specified time, denied a request for information in bad faith, provided incorrect or incomplete information, destroyed requested information, or obstructed the process. The Act specifies a penalty of &8377; 250/- per day, not exceeding &8377; 25,000/-, with the PIO given an opportunity to be heard before imposition. The burden of proof lies with the PIO to show reasonable and diligent action.

The judgment emphasized that once the Commission decides a penalty must be imposed, it should be at the fixed rate of &8377; 250/- per day as per Section 20 of the Act. The Commission does not have the authority to reduce or increase the penalty arbitrarily. If there are reasonable grounds for a delay or a satisfactory explanation provided by the PIO, no penalty should be imposed. However, if a penalty is warranted, it must be at the prescribed rate. In this case, the Court upheld the penalty of &8377; 3,500/- for a 14-day delay, emphasizing adherence to the statutory provisions.