Penalties (s. 20) and the Commission's power to award compensation — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Penalties (s. 20) and the Commission’s power to award compensation

A right to information with no penalty would be a threat with no teeth — a PIO could stonewall forever and lose nothing. Section 20 supplies the teeth: ₹250 for every single day of delay, up to ₹25,000, paid by the officer out of his own pocket, plus disciplinary action. It is the one provision that makes a PIO personally afraid to obstruct you.

The daily penalty and the separate remedy of compensation

Two distinct money remedies live in this unit — the penalty on the PIO (s. 20) and compensation to the applicant (s. 19(8)(b)). Keep them apart.

A. When the penalty bites (s. 20(1))

The Commission, deciding any complaint or appeal, shall impose a penalty on the PIO who, without reasonable cause:

refused to receive an application;
did not furnish information within the time-limit;
malafidely denied the request;
knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;
destroyed information that was the subject of a request; or
obstructed in any manner the furnishing of information.

B. The amount and the burden (s. 20(1) provisos)

The penalty is ₹250 for each day the delay continues or the default persists, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000. The burden of proving he acted reasonably and diligently lies on the PIO — a mirror of the s. 19(5) rule. Failure to transfer a misdirected application within five days (s. 6(3)) is itself a default that can attract this penalty.

C. Disciplinary action (s. 20(2))

Where the PIO has persistently failed without reasonable cause, the Commission may recommend disciplinary action against him under the service rules — a sanction beyond the fine.

D. Compensation — a different remedy (s. 19(8)(b))

Compensation for the loss or detriment the applicant suffered is not a s. 20 penalty and is not available on a complaint. It can be awarded only on a second appeal, under s. 19(8)(b). So a defaulting PIO may be fined (s. 20) and the applicant separately compensated (s. 19(8)(b)) — but the fine goes to the State and the compensation to the applicant, and only the appeal can order the compensation.

Section 20(1), RTI Act, 2005: “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer… has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application… or has not furnished information within the time specified… or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information… it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.”

In Simple Terms: A PIO who without good reason refuses, delays, lies, destroys records or obstructs pays ₹250 a day up to ₹25,000 — and must himself prove he acted reasonably. Persistent default can also cost him disciplinary action. That penalty is separate from compensation to you for your loss, which only the Information Commission on a second appeal can award.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — penalty (s. 20) vs compensation (s. 19(8)(b))

The penalty is a fine on the PIO (₹250/day, max ₹25,000), payable to the State, and available on either a complaint or an appeal. Compensation is money to the applicant for his loss, available only on a second appeal under s. 19(8)(b). The classic decoy asks for “compensation on a complaint” — it cannot be given there. Do not merge the two remedies or the two routes.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — penalty and compensation asked together on a complaint

Facts. Aggrieved by false and delayed information, the applicant files a complaint and asks the Commission both to penalise the PIO and to compensate him for his loss.

Rule. s. 20: penalty (₹250/day, max ₹25,000) available on a complaint or appeal; s. 19(8)(b): compensation available only on a second appeal.

Apply. Decoy: “the Commission can award both on the complaint.” On the complaint the Commission can impose the s. 20 penalty for the false/delayed information, but it cannot award compensation — that requires a second appeal under s. 19(8)(b).

Conclusion. Penalty: yes, on the complaint. Compensation: no — the applicant must pursue a second appeal to claim it.

flowchart TD
    A["PIO default without reasonable cause"]
    A --> B["Triggers (s. 20): refused to receive · delayed ·<br/>malafide denial · false/incomplete info · destroyed · obstructed"]
    B --> C["Penalty: Rs 250/day, max Rs 25,000 (s. 20(1))<br/>burden on PIO to show he acted reasonably"]
    B --> D["Persistent default: recommend disciplinary action (s. 20(2))"]
    A --> E["Applicant's loss?"]
    E --> F["Compensation ONLY on second appeal (s. 19(8)(b))"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E,F box;

Case Laws

Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) — penalty and the appellate reliefs are anchored in the Commission’s statutory powers; a complaint can carry the penalty but not the disclosure/compensation relief.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) — the penalty deters obstruction while the Act’s timelines are enforced; the machinery must not be used to harass administration either.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics