Moneylife: New Delhi: Friday, May 19, 2017.
Can a Central
Information Commissioner impose a penalty as per his whims and fancies? Early
this week, the Delhi High Court slapped a show cause notice on the Central
Information Commission (CIC), seeking an explanation for arbitrarily imposing a
Rs5,000 penalty on a Public Information Officer (PIO) instead of going by
Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The court
stated, “Section 20 (of the RTI Act) mandates a penalty of Rs250 for each day’s
delay subject to a maximum of Rs25,000…there is no concept of token
penalty…once the explanation rendered by respondent is rejected, the CIC was
obliged to impose the penalty in terms of Section 20.”
The court has
issued a notice to the CIC and the CPIO to respond by 22nd September.
The
petitioner, Dinesh Pandey, referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case
of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors, where the apex court,
while dealing with the concept of levy of mandatory penalty provided under
Central Excise Act, 1944, has held that “when the statutory provision provides
for mandatory penalty, the authorities cannot impose lesser penalty when no
discretion is available on quantum of penalty under the said statutory
provisions”.
The
petitioner also referred to two other decisions, of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which observed, “We find no
provision in the Act which empowers the Commission to either reduce or enhance
this penalty. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there are
reasonable grounds for delay and that the Public Information Officer (PIO)
concerned has satisfactorily explained the delay then no penalty can be
imposed. However once the Commission come to the conclusion that the penalty
has to be imposed then the same must be @ Rs250 per day and not at any other
rate at the whims and fancy of the Commission...”
There have
been similar cases wherein the CIC has imposed a fine which does not adhere to
Section 20 rule in the RTI Act. One of them pertains to Delhi-based RTI
applicant, RK Jain, who filed an application at the Central Public Information
Officer, Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)’ in
Delhi. He had sought information on cases that were reserved by the CESTAT along
with names of parties and appeal numbers. Dissatisfied with the information, he
filed a second appeal with the CIC, Delhi. The CIC, after hearing, imposed a
token penalty of Rs2,500 on the CPIO.
Section 20
in the Right to Information Act, 2005
20.
Penalties.
(1) 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,
as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an
application for information or has not furnished information within the time
specified under sub‑section (1) of section 7 or malafidely
denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall
impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is
received or information is furnished. However, the total amount of such penalty
shall not exceed twenty‑five thousand rupees: Provided that
the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer,
as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard
before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of
proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be.
.JPG)
.JPG)
