Section 20 of the RTI Act — when the PIO has to pay from their own pocket

The penalty under Section 20 is the only place in the RTI Act where the cost of obstruction is borne personally by the officer. Even a small penalty on the service record can derail a promotion. Citizens who use it carefully — only where there is genuine mala fides — get faster compliance on every subsequent application to the same office.

Section 20(1) lists six triggers: refusal to receive an application, failure to furnish information within the deadline, mala fide denial, knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, destruction of records, or obstruction. The Commission, after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard, can impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day from the day the information was due, subject to a ceiling of Rs 25,000.

Section 20(2) is a separate consequence: the Commission can recommend disciplinary action under the service rules. This goes on the officer's permanent service record. The penalty under 20(1) and the disciplinary recommendation under 20(2) can run together.

The penalty is personal — it is paid from the officer's salary, not from the public exchequer. Commissions have repeatedly held that a department cannot absorb the cost or reimburse the officer informally.

“Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified… it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.” — Section 20(1), RTI Act, 2005 ¹⁾

1. Section 20 is not automatic. The Commission has to be persuaded that the PIO acted without reasonable cause or in bad faith. A bare prayer is not enough; you have to lay the foundation in the appeal.
2. Frame the prayer in the second appeal, not the first. The FAA has no power to impose a Section 20 penalty.
3. Quantify the day count. Calculate Rs 250 multiplied by the number of days from the due date to the day of filing the second appeal. The Commission will use that as the starting figure.
4. Cite specific conduct. Refusal to receive, ignored reminders, contradictory replies, destruction of records — the more specific the conduct, the easier it is for the Commission to find mala fides.
5. Use 20(2) where the conduct is part of a pattern. A disciplinary recommendation costs the officer nothing today, but it stays on the service file and affects promotion.

• The PIO sent three different replies to the same RTI, each citing a different sub-clause of Section 8, and finally claimed the file was destroyed. In the second appeal you cite “knowingly giving incorrect information” and “destruction of records” under Section 20(1). Use the Section 20 penalty appeal template.
• The PIO refused to receive the application at the counter for three consecutive visits. You file a Section 18 complaint with photographs and witness statements; the Commission can impose the penalty in the complaint itself, without waiting for the second-appeal stage.

1. Move a recall application within 30 days, drawing the Commission's attention to the unaddressed prayer.
2. File a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, treating the Commission's silence on Section 20 as a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Mujibur Rahman v. CIC (Delhi HC) confirms the Commission's duty to give reasons.
3. For repeat offenders, file a fresh Section 18 complaint citing the previous order — pattern evidence carries weight.

• Back to the Act index
• Section 5 — Designation of the PIO
• Section 7 — Timelines that trigger the penalty
• Section 18 — Complaint route
• Section 19 — Appeals
• Section 20 penalty petition form
• PIO Reply Checker — surface mala fide patterns
• Vicarious liability — Section 20

Recovery from the officer's salary requires a recovery certificate. The CIC has noted in its annual reports that only a fraction of penalties imposed are actually recovered. The disciplinary recommendation under 20(2) is often the more effective deterrent.

The penalty is Rs 250 per day of delay, so a delay of 30 days produces Rs 7,500 in principle. The Commission can stop short of the Rs 25,000 ceiling where it finds partial cause, but it cannot go below Rs 250 per day once mala fides is established.

No. The penalty is personal to the PIO. Where systemic failures are involved, the Commission uses Section 19(8)(a) instead — directing the department to fix record-keeping, training, or proactive disclosure.

Last reviewed on: 15 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.