RTI Act | Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes ₹25K RTI Penalty, Says Mala Fide Intent Must Be Established For Action
Saksham Vaishya
7 Sept 2026 4:30 PM IST
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requires a categorical finding that the information was withheld due to the deliberate and mala fide acts of the Public Information Officer. The Court accordingly set aside a ₹25,000 penalty imposed on a Public Information Officer, finding that there was no mala fide or deliberate.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order dated November 7, 2023, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in a second appeal. The proceedings arose from an RTI application seeking certain information concerning Gram Panchayat Pachheda for the financial years 2014-15 to 2020-21.
The RTI applicant subsequently filed a First Appeal alleging that the petitioner had refused to provide the information and also approached the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission held that the information had been withheld without reasonable cause and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The petitioner submitted that the penalty had been imposed without recording any finding of mala fide intent and that there was no deliberate act to withhold the information.
The Court held that under Section 20 of the RTI Act, imposition of penalty requires a categorical finding of documents being due to mala fide acts of the Public Information Officer. Without such a finding, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law.
“Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the imposition of penalty or a recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate and malafide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a finding is recorded in the order supported by cogent reasons, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law,” the Court remarked.
On the facts of the case, the Court found a complete absence of mala fide or deliberate failure on the part of the Public Information Officer. It held that unless malafide intent and deliberate intent were duly established, the penalty cannot be sustained.
The Court therefore allowed the petition and set aside the State Information Commission's order dated November 7, 2023, imposing the penalty.
Case Title: Radhika Sidar v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors. [WPC No. 2353 of 2024]
