High Court of Delhi · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7[1] obligations. Non-designation of PIO under §5 is no defence; §7(1) obligations.
Non-designation of PIO under §5 is no defence; §7(1) obligations bind the public authority itself.
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2016-01-01 |
| Citation | Citation awaited |
| Petitioner | RTI applicant |
| Respondent | Public authority |
| RTI Act sections | §5, §20 |
| Outcome | Applicant allowed |
Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7(1) obligations.
Where a public authority has failed to designate a PIO under §5, the statutory obligations under §7(1) continue to bind the public authority. Failure attracts §20 liability traceable to the Head of Institution.
§5, PIO designation, Delhi HC, §20
These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.