Introduction
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 empowers citizens to access government-held information. When a Public Information Officer (PIO) denies information or delays the response, the applicant can seek justice through the appeal process. The Act provides a two-tier appeal mechanism. This ensures transparency, accountability, and fair resolution of disputes. The appeals under RTI Act process is a crucial safeguard that upholds the citizen’s right to know.
How Appeal Process Works under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005?
Under the RTI Act, any person can file an appeal if they do not receive a decision within the time limit under Section 7(1) or 7(3)(a), or if they are dissatisfied with the decision of the Central or State Public Information Officer (CPIO/SPIO). This first appeal must be filed within 30 days of either the decision or the end of the response period. A senior officer in the same public authority will handle the appeal. However, the officer can accept delayed appeals if the applicant shows sufficient cause.
If the appeal concerns disclosure of third-party information under Section 11, the concerned third party can also appeal within 30 days from the date of that order.
A second appeal can be made to the Central or State Information Commission. This must be done within 90 days from the date of the first appeal decision or the date when the decision should have been made. The Commission may accept late appeals if justified by sufficient cause.
If the appeal involves third-party information, the Commission must give that third party a fair chance to be heard. During appeal proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the CPIO or SPIO to justify the denial of information.
The authority must resolve first or second appeals within 30 days. If needed, the period may be extended to a maximum of 45 days, with proper reasons recorded in writing.
The decision of the Information Commission is final and binding. The Commission holds several powers in appeal cases. It can direct the public authority to take necessary steps like granting access to information, appointing a PIO, publishing information, or changing record management practices. It may also ask the authority to conduct training, submit annual reports, or compensate the complainant for any loss.
The Commission can impose penalties as per the Act or reject the appeal entirely. It must notify both the complainant and the public authority about its decision, along with information on any further right to appeal. All appeal proceedings will follow prescribed procedures.
What Are The Penalties Mentioned Under under the RTI Act, 2005?
The RTI Act empowers the Central or State Information Commission to impose penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs) for non-compliance. If the Commission finds that a Central or State PIO refused to accept an RTI application without valid reason, failed to provide information within the time limit under Section 7(1), or deliberately denied the request, it can take action. Penalties also apply if the PIO knowingly gave false, incomplete, or misleading information, destroyed requested records, or obstructed the process.
In such cases, the Commission imposes a fine of ₹250 for each day of delay. This continues until the PIO receives the application or provides the information. However, the maximum penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.
Before imposing the penalty, the Commission gives the PIO a fair chance to present their case. The burden of proof lies on the PIO to show they acted responsibly and diligently.
Additionally, if the Commission finds that the PIO has consistently failed without reasonable cause or shown persistent negligence or malafide intent, it may recommend disciplinary action. This action is taken under the applicable service rules for that officer.
These penalty provisions ensure accountability and help enforce transparency in public authorities under the RTI Act.
Important Case Laws on Penalties under RTI Act
- Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors., 2007 (Delhi High Court).
The Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in governance. In this case, the PIO failed to provide information within the prescribed period. The Court ruled that merely furnishing information after delay is not enough. It upheld that the Information Commission can impose penalties if the delay is without reasonable cause. The judgment reinforced that penalty provisions act as a deterrent to negligence. - Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar, 2013 (Bombay High Court).
In this case, the Bombay High Court upheld the Central Information Commission’s order imposing a penalty. The PIO had delayed the information without any valid reason. The Court ruled that persistent failure and unjustified delay attract penalties. The judgment clarified that the burden of proof lies on the PIO to justify the delay. - R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 2013 (Delhi High Court).
The petitioner sought information which was denied repeatedly. The Delhi High Court ruled that the PIO’s deliberate inaction and evasion amounted to malafide denial. The Court observed that the RTI framework will fail if officers are not held accountable. It upheld the imposition of a penalty for knowingly misleading the applicant. - Vivek Garg v. PIO, Land & Building Department, 2017 (CIC Decision).
The Central Information Commission imposed a penalty on the PIO for providing misleading information and failing to respond on time. The Commission held that giving false or incomplete replies is as serious as not giving any reply. It emphasized that RTI is not just a formality but a right that must be upheld by public officers. - Ramesh Sharma v. CIC & Others, 2014 (Delhi High Court).
Here, the Court ruled that if the Information Officer destroys information or obstructs access, strict action must follow. The judgment clarified that destroying requested records or non-cooperation attracts both penalty and disciplinary proceedings.
Conclusion
The appeal process under the RTI Act strengthens the transparency framework. It offers citizens a legal remedy against delays or wrongful denial of information. With strict timelines and oversight by senior officers and information commissions, the process ensures accountability. By enforcing compliance and penalizing violations, the appeal mechanism plays a key role in protecting the public’s right to information.
