Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Mario Pires, was serving as the Additional Council Secretary and Public Information Officer of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The third respondent, A.R.S. Kumar, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 28.09.2011 seeking certified copies and information regarding various committees formed in the BBMP. The petitioner forwarded the application on 07.10.2011 to all the Standing Committees requesting them to submit the information. After receiving the information from the Standing Committees, the petitioner informed the third respondent through a notice dated 26.10.2011 that the documents sought were voluminous and could be inspected. The third respondent filed a complaint before the Karnataka State Information Commission, which issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The Commission, by order dated 03.10.2012, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, recoverable from his salary, for not furnishing the information within the stipulated time. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, which allows the Commission to impose a penalty if a Public Information Officer has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive an application or not furnished information within the specified time. The Court noted that the Commission's order did not record any finding that the petitioner had acted without reasonable cause or that there was a causal connection between the delay and the petitioner's conduct. The Court also observed that the Commission had not given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required under Section 20(1). The High Court held that the penalty could not be sustained and quashed the Commission's order. The Court clarified that the Commission was at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Headnote
A) Right to Information Act - Penalty under Section 20(1) - Causal Connection - The imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requires a causal connection between the delay in furnishing information and the conduct of the Public Information Officer. The officer must be found to have refused to receive the application, or not furnished information within the specified time, without reasonable cause. In the absence of such a finding, the penalty cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-5) B) Right to Information Act - Penalty under Section 20(1) - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 mandates that the Information Commission shall impose penalty only after giving the Public Information Officer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The order imposing penalty must reflect that such opportunity was provided. (Para 4) C) Right to Information Act - Penalty under Section 20(1) - Strict Liability - The penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not strict liability; it requires a finding of unreasonable conduct on the part of the Public Information Officer. The officer must be shown to have acted without reasonable cause or deliberately. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can be imposed on a Public Information Officer without establishing a causal connection between the delay in furnishing information and the conduct of the officer, and without affording an opportunity of being heard.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Information Commission imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner. The Court held that the Commission's order did not record any finding that the petitioner had acted without reasonable cause or that there was a causal connection between the delay and the petitioner's conduct. The Court also noted that the Commission had not given the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Commission was at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Law Points
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 20(1) penalty
- Public Information Officer
- delay in furnishing information
- causal connection
- mens rea
- strict liability
- natural justice
- show cause notice
