Section 20 Penalty under the RTI Act

Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides for monetary penalty of Rs 250 per day (capped at Rs 25,000) on the PIO who, without reasonable cause, refuses an RTI, delays beyond 30 days, gives false information, or obstructs disclosure. The penalty is imposed by the Information Commission after a show-cause opportunity. Section 20(2) additionally allows the Commission to recommend disciplinary action.

Part of the PIO / FAA Knowledge Base.

• Penalty — Rs 250 per day of delay / wrongful refusal, capped at Rs 25,000.
• Triggers — refusal without reasonable cause, delay beyond 30 days, malafide, false information, destruction of records.
• Who imposes — Central or State Information Commission on Second Appeal / complaint.
• Procedure — show-cause notice to the PIO; opportunity of being heard; reasoned order.
• §20(2) — Commission can recommend disciplinary action under service rules; recovery from the officer personally, not from the department.

Section 20 — Penalties. (1) 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 under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, 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: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

• Mahesh Chandra Sharma v. CIC (Delhi HC 2013) — Full Rs 25,000 penalty upheld where PIO failed to show any reasonable cause for 70-day delay.
• M. Senthil Kumaran v. SIC (Madras HC 2020) — Mechanical “workload” excuses insufficient; burden on PIO under §20 proviso.
• Ajay Kumar v. CIC (Delhi HC 2015) — Malafide disclosure of false information justifies full penalty + §20(2).
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC (Delhi HC 2007) — Reasoned bona fide denial not malafide; no §20 penalty.

Browse the full case-law database — 362 curated rulings for more.

• Blanket invocation without a specific statutory anchor and reasoning.
• Skipping public-interest balancing under §8(2) where an override is plausible.
• Generic “sensitive” labels instead of the precise clause.
• Missing 30-day clock tracking — §7(1) drives downstream appeals.
• No severance attempt under §10 where parts of the record are disclosable.

Q1. Is the penalty recoverable from the officer personally?

Yes. Courts have held that §20 penalty is personal to the PIO; the department cannot pay it.

Q2. Does the penalty accrue daily?

Yes. Rs 250/day from day-31 until the information is furnished or the applicant withdraws, capped at Rs 25,000 total (100 days).

Q3. Is the 45-day FAA delay counted for §20?

No. §20 is about the PIO's delay under §7(1). FAA delays engage §19(3) Second Appeal not §20 penalty on FAA.

Q4. Can the PIO appeal a penalty order?

Not statutorily; a writ under Article 226 before the High Court is the remedy.

Q5. What about disciplinary action under §20(2)?

The Commission can recommend it; the competent authority under service rules must act, not the Commission itself.

• Sibling framework pages: §19(1) First Appeal Guide · §19(3) Second Appeal · §20 Penalty · §22 Override · §24 Exempt Bodies
• Procedure side: PIO Reply Guide · FAA Speaking-Order Guide
• §8 exemption deep-dives: §8(1)(j) · §8(1)(e) · §8(1)(h) · §8(1)(i)
• Full Act text: RTI Act with DPDP 2025 overlay
• Landmark rulings: 362 curated RTI cases

• PIO / FAA Knowledge Base (hub)
• All 10 grounds for RTI rejection
• Appellate review checklist
• RTI Glossary — 40 essential terms

• Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, §44(3) — notified 14 November 2025.
• Supreme Court and High Court judgments cited above.
• Central Information Commission and State Information Commission decisions, as indexed in our case-law database.

Last reviewed: 24 April 2026.