CIC’s power to penalise officers for delay in RTI reply must be reasoned and preceded by a fair enquiry: Allahabad HC

Yadav was also the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Ghaziabad Passport Office then.

“We are of the considered view that Section 20 of the RTI Act confers power to impose a penalty on officers who deliberately obstruct or delay the supply of the information. However, the exercise of this power must be reasoned, proportionate, and preceded by a fair enquiry… Issuing the maximum penalty in tandem with a recommendation for Government action within a negligible time gap suggests undue haste and raises concerns of arbitrariness,” the Division Bench said in its February 27, 2026, order.

“While the Commission is entrusted with enforcement, it must ensure that its decisions are grounded in careful consideration of facts, statutory limits, and procedural fairness. The imposition of penalty and related recommendations must not appear rushed, prejudged, or compromise the statutory safeguards and the rule of law,” the Bench further observed.

The matter dates back to March 26, 2006, when a man filed an RTI application seeking information regarding duplicate passports, submission forms, procedures, and time limits. The application was returned to the applicant on June 14 over “wrong details on the demand draft”, which was corrected and resubmitted by the applicant. The then RPO (Yadav) marked it to the PRO (Public Relations Officer) and the APIO (Assistant Public Information Officer). On August 4, 2006, the applicant was directed to furnish a “Key Number” and “File Number,” stating that the website could not be operated without these details. Aggrieved by this non-furnishing of information, the applicant filed a complaint with the CIC.

In its February 8 and March 19, 2007 orders, the CIC decided to initiate penal action against the PIO for the delay of more than four months in providing the information and issued a penalty notice. The CIC also recommended to the Chief Passport Officer and Joint Secretary (CPV Division), Ministry of External Affairs, to hold an enquiry into the matter and take the strictest action against the Regional Passport Officer, Ghaziabad.

After hearing the submissions in the petition filed by Yadav, the High Court observed that at no stage was there any allegation or observation supported by any evidence, by any authority, or by the CIC that there was any deliberate act or omission by the petitioner in supplying the information desired by the complainant.

“Instead, the fact-finding inquiry report has clearly given justification for the delay at the institutional level, which was more of an infrastructure problem than has anything to do with the petitioner, and the report in fact clearly says that the reason for the delay shall not be assigned to any of the officers,” the High Court said.

The Bench further observed that the CIC had already formed a prejudiced view against the petitioner even before a proper enquiry could be conducted.

Referring to a part of the March 19, 2007 order by the CIC, the court stated, “…respondent no. 2 (Information Commissioner) described the petitioner in highly disparaging terms, noting that he does not have any respect for the members of the public or statutory body like the Central Information Commission, and further attributing to him the cause of public perception that bureaucracy is insensitive and high-handed. Such observations demonstrate that respondent no.2 approached the matter with a pre-determined opinion and a mindset already hostile to the petitioner, rather than an objective assessment of the facts.”

The court also referred to another paragraph of the same order stating that “the CIC only wishes that it had the powers to dismiss the services of such ill-behaved bureaucrats, and direct the foreign secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings immediately on receipt of this order”.

“Proceeding to determine the penalty and also recommending action to the Government without awaiting the completion of the enquiry undermines the procedural safeguards enshrined in the statute,” the Bench said.

“For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the statutory scheme under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the enquiry report of the Chief Passport Officer, and the circumstances demonstrating bias and predetermined opinion on the part of respondent no. 2 (Information Commissioner), this Court is satisfied that the order dated 08.02.2007 and order dated 19.03.2007 passed by the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission were unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to law,” the High Court, quashing both the orders issued by the CIC.