Case Note & Summary
The case involves a petition filed by a Public Information Officer (PIO) challenging a penalty imposed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, who was the PIO at the relevant time, failed to supply information sought by respondent no.5 within the prescribed period. The petitioner contended that the information sought related to the administrative section and he sought assistance from respondent no.4 under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. However, respondent no.4 did not furnish the information within 30 days and took about three years to provide it. The petitioner argued that under Section 5(4) and (5), once assistance is sought, the officer from whom assistance is sought shall be treated as the PIO for the purpose of contravention, and therefore the petitioner should not be held responsible. The court examined the issue and referred to the Delhi High Court decision in Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Central Information Commission, which in turn relied on J.P. Agrawal v. Union of India. The court held that the PIO is the pivot for enforcing the RTI Act and cannot act as a mere post office. The PIO must apply his own mind, analyze the material, and either disclose the information or give grounds for non-disclosure. Section 5(4) is meant to strengthen the PIO's authority within the department, not to absolve him of responsibility. The penalty was imposed not merely for delay but because the PIO acted mechanically by forwarding the application to respondent no.4 and then forwarding the reply without independent scrutiny. The court also noted that the information furnished was not what was sought. The court concluded that the PIO cannot escape responsibility by blaming subordinates. The matter was adjourned to allow respondent no.4 to take instructions.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Public Information Officer - Responsibility - Section 5(4) and 5(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - The PIO sought assistance from another officer but failed to supply information within time. The court held that Section 5(4) strengthens the PIO's authority, not absolves responsibility; the PIO must apply independent mind and cannot act as a mere post office. Penalty imposed on PIO for not dealing with the application properly. (Paras 2, 8-9) B) Right to Information - Penalty - PIO's Duty - Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - The PIO is responsible for ensuring information is provided within statutory time limits. Even if assistance is sought, the PIO remains liable for contravention. The court relied on Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Central Information Commission and J.P. Agrawal v. Union of India to hold that the PIO cannot shift blame to subordinates. (Paras 2, 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Public Information Officer (PIO) can escape penalty under the RTI Act for delay in furnishing information by contending that he sought assistance from another officer under Section 5(4) and the latter failed to provide information in time.
Final Decision
The court adjourned the matter to 18.06.2024 to allow respondent no.4 to take instructions and make submissions on the contention raised by the petitioner. The court noted the legal position that PIO cannot act as a mere post office and must apply independent mind.
Law Points
- Public Information Officer is pivot for enforcing RTI Act
- cannot act as mere post office
- must apply independent mind
- Section 5(4) strengthens authority not absolves responsibility
- penalty for contravention lies on PIO even if assistance sought from another officer
