New Indian Express: Trivandrum: Monday,
July 7, 2025.
Citing Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission stated that the head of any public office is deemed a ‘public authority’ and is empowered to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities.
In a significant
ruling to strengthen the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act,
the State Information Commission has clarified that government departments will
be held accountable for compensating applicants who suffer due to lapses or negligence
by officials in handling RTI requests.
Issuing the order, State Information Commissioner Dr. A Abdul Hakkim emphasised that if an officer fails in discharging duties under the RTI Act, the responsibility for compensation lies with the department concerned, not merely the individual officer. The order provides long-awaited clarity on the accountability framework under the Act.
Citing Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission stated that the head of any public office is deemed a ‘public authority’ and is empowered to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities. However, the Commission acknowledged that such office heads may not always possess the authority to take disciplinary action, such as issuing suspensions or transfers. These powers typically rest with the administrative department.
As such, the Commission ruled that when an officer’s negligence or failure causes hardship to an RTI applicant, it is the departmental headquarters that must compensate the applicant in accordance with Section 19(8)(b) of the Act and the Commission’s directive.
The order also warned that in cases where an officer deliberately obstructs access to information, the Commission may recommend disciplinary action under Section 20(2), and the department is obligated to act upon such recommendations as per existing service rules.
Further, the Commission retains the authority to impose fines under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act Rs 250 per day of delay, capped at Rs 25,000. This penalty must be borne personally by the erring officer and deposited with the government.
Citing Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission stated that the head of any public office is deemed a ‘public authority’ and is empowered to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities.
Issuing the order, State Information Commissioner Dr. A Abdul Hakkim emphasised that if an officer fails in discharging duties under the RTI Act, the responsibility for compensation lies with the department concerned, not merely the individual officer. The order provides long-awaited clarity on the accountability framework under the Act.
Citing Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission stated that the head of any public office is deemed a ‘public authority’ and is empowered to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities. However, the Commission acknowledged that such office heads may not always possess the authority to take disciplinary action, such as issuing suspensions or transfers. These powers typically rest with the administrative department.
As such, the Commission ruled that when an officer’s negligence or failure causes hardship to an RTI applicant, it is the departmental headquarters that must compensate the applicant in accordance with Section 19(8)(b) of the Act and the Commission’s directive.
The order also warned that in cases where an officer deliberately obstructs access to information, the Commission may recommend disciplinary action under Section 20(2), and the department is obligated to act upon such recommendations as per existing service rules.
Further, the Commission retains the authority to impose fines under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act Rs 250 per day of delay, capped at Rs 25,000. This penalty must be borne personally by the erring officer and deposited with the government.
.JPG)
.JPG)
