Moneylife: Article: Wednesday, 28 January 2026.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the directorate general of health services (DGHS), refusing to interfere with a central information commission (CIC) order that directed disclosure of information, payment of ₹45,000 as compensation to a right to information applicant and imposed a ₹15,000 penalty on the public information officer (PIO) for obstructing access to information.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar
Kaurav held that the CIC had acted within the scope of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act, 2005, and that no perversity, procedural impropriety or illegality
was made out to warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution.
"The Commission has, after affording due opportunity and upon an exhaustive consideration of the record, held that the said officer deliberately obstructed the flow of information, failed to comply with binding directions of the Commission and exhibited a nonchalant and evasive approach towards his statutory obligations under the RTI Act. The penalty has thus been levied in his individual capacity and is statutorily recoverable from his salary in terms of the Act. Consequently, any grievance arising out of such penalty is personal to the said officer alone, and if aggrieved, the law provides him an independent remedy. The petitioner, therefore, lacks the requisite locus standi to espouse or agitate any challenge in respect of the penalty so imposed, or to assail the findings recorded by the Commission against the said officer," the Bench says.
The case arose from an RTI application filed on 31 October 2023 by Sanjeev Kumar, who sought detailed information regarding the licensing status of Artemis Hospital in New Friends Colony during the hospitalisation of his wife on 7th April and 8 April 2023.
Mr Kumar also sought details relating to action taken on his complaint filed on the centralised public grievance redress and monitoring system (CPGRAMS) portal, claim settlements by a third-party claim therapist, correspondence with the hospital, doctor-wise fee distribution and preventive steps taken by authorities to protect patients.
The PIO of DGHS replied on 21 November 2023, stating that the Hospital was regulated under the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953, claimed that the Hospital held a valid licence, and rejected several queries as 'not pertaining' to the department.
Dissatisfied with the response, Mr Kumar filed a first appeal, after which the appellate authority directed the DGHS to furnish replies to certain points. A second appeal was then filed before the CIC.
During multiple hearings in 2024, the CIC found DGHS replies to be incomplete and evasive. In an interim order on 7 October 2024, the Commission noted that DGHS had failed to clearly establish whether Artemis Hospital held a valid licence during the relevant period in April 2023.
The Commission observed that the Hospital’s registration certificate was valid only till 31 March 2023, while the renewed licence came into effect from 1 August 2023, leaving the crucial period uncovered. It also found that information on claim settlements, correspondence, doctors’ fees, and preventive measures had not been properly addressed.
In its final order on 16 January 2025, the CIC strongly criticised the conduct of the then and present PIO, Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, medical superintendent of DGHS, noting a 'casual and nonchalant attitude' towards statutory obligations.
The Commission held that the PIO had deliberately obstructed the flow of information, failed to comply with earlier directions, and attempted to sidestep responsibility by merely forwarding notices to the hospital.
Accordingly, the CIC imposed a penalty of ₹15,000 on the PIO in his personal capacity, directed the DGHS to pay ₹45,000 as compensation to Mr Kumar for the harassment and detriment suffered due to the delay and inaction, and issued an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act for systemic improvements.
Challenging the CIC order, DGHS approached the High Court, arguing against the penalty, compensation and advisory.
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the penalty imposed on the PIO is personal in nature and DGHS lacked locus standi to challenge it. “Any grievance arising out of such penalty is personal to the officer concerned,” the Court says.
On compensation, the Court upheld the CIC’s power under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, observing that the provision is remedial and intended to redress loss or hardship caused by unlawful denial or delay of information.
The advisory issued by the CIC is held to be purely recommendatory and non-enforceable, carrying no civil or penal consequences.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the CIC’s reasoning, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Commission had exercised its statutory discretion within the four corners of the law.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the directorate general of health services (DGHS), refusing to interfere with a central information commission (CIC) order that directed disclosure of information, payment of ₹45,000 as compensation to a right to information applicant and imposed a ₹15,000 penalty on the public information officer (PIO) for obstructing access to information.
"The Commission has, after affording due opportunity and upon an exhaustive consideration of the record, held that the said officer deliberately obstructed the flow of information, failed to comply with binding directions of the Commission and exhibited a nonchalant and evasive approach towards his statutory obligations under the RTI Act. The penalty has thus been levied in his individual capacity and is statutorily recoverable from his salary in terms of the Act. Consequently, any grievance arising out of such penalty is personal to the said officer alone, and if aggrieved, the law provides him an independent remedy. The petitioner, therefore, lacks the requisite locus standi to espouse or agitate any challenge in respect of the penalty so imposed, or to assail the findings recorded by the Commission against the said officer," the Bench says.
The case arose from an RTI application filed on 31 October 2023 by Sanjeev Kumar, who sought detailed information regarding the licensing status of Artemis Hospital in New Friends Colony during the hospitalisation of his wife on 7th April and 8 April 2023.
Mr Kumar also sought details relating to action taken on his complaint filed on the centralised public grievance redress and monitoring system (CPGRAMS) portal, claim settlements by a third-party claim therapist, correspondence with the hospital, doctor-wise fee distribution and preventive steps taken by authorities to protect patients.
The PIO of DGHS replied on 21 November 2023, stating that the Hospital was regulated under the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953, claimed that the Hospital held a valid licence, and rejected several queries as 'not pertaining' to the department.
Dissatisfied with the response, Mr Kumar filed a first appeal, after which the appellate authority directed the DGHS to furnish replies to certain points. A second appeal was then filed before the CIC.
During multiple hearings in 2024, the CIC found DGHS replies to be incomplete and evasive. In an interim order on 7 October 2024, the Commission noted that DGHS had failed to clearly establish whether Artemis Hospital held a valid licence during the relevant period in April 2023.
The Commission observed that the Hospital’s registration certificate was valid only till 31 March 2023, while the renewed licence came into effect from 1 August 2023, leaving the crucial period uncovered. It also found that information on claim settlements, correspondence, doctors’ fees, and preventive measures had not been properly addressed.
In its final order on 16 January 2025, the CIC strongly criticised the conduct of the then and present PIO, Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, medical superintendent of DGHS, noting a 'casual and nonchalant attitude' towards statutory obligations.
The Commission held that the PIO had deliberately obstructed the flow of information, failed to comply with earlier directions, and attempted to sidestep responsibility by merely forwarding notices to the hospital.
Accordingly, the CIC imposed a penalty of ₹15,000 on the PIO in his personal capacity, directed the DGHS to pay ₹45,000 as compensation to Mr Kumar for the harassment and detriment suffered due to the delay and inaction, and issued an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act for systemic improvements.
Challenging the CIC order, DGHS approached the High Court, arguing against the penalty, compensation and advisory.
Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the penalty imposed on the PIO is personal in nature and DGHS lacked locus standi to challenge it. “Any grievance arising out of such penalty is personal to the officer concerned,” the Court says.
On compensation, the Court upheld the CIC’s power under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, observing that the provision is remedial and intended to redress loss or hardship caused by unlawful denial or delay of information.
The advisory issued by the CIC is held to be purely recommendatory and non-enforceable, carrying no civil or penal consequences.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the CIC’s reasoning, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Commission had exercised its statutory discretion within the four corners of the law.
.JPG)
.JPG)
