Force the PIO to Pay a Penalty — Section 20 Complaint Guide

The RTI Act 2005 is not just about getting information — it has teeth. Section 20 allows the Information Commission to impose a personal monetary penalty on the Public Information Officer of ₹250 for every day of delay, up to a maximum of ₹25,000. If the refusal was malicious, the Commission can also recommend disciplinary proceedings. This is a powerful tool that is under-used because citizens do not know to ask for it explicitly. This guide tells you when it applies, how to raise it, and gives you the complaint template.

Section 20(1): If the Commission decides the PIO has:

• Refused to receive an RTI application without reasonable cause;
• Not furnished information within the time specified;
• Malafidely denied the request;
• Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information;
• Destroyed information sought; or
• Obstructed furnishing information in any manner —

…the Commission shall impose a penalty of ₹250 per day for the period of default, provided the Commission gives the PIO an opportunity to be heard and is satisfied that the delay / refusal was “without reasonable cause.” The maximum is ₹25,000.

Section 20(2): If the Commission is satisfied that the PIO has acted mala fide or persistently violated the provisions, it shall recommend to the competent authority that disciplinary action be taken against the PIO under the applicable service rules.

Key point: “shall” — the Commission has no discretion once it finds the conditions are met. It must impose penalty if the PIO cannot show reasonable cause.

The FAA cannot impose Section 20 penalty. This is the most common misconception. The FAA can record adverse remarks in the PIO's service record and can report the matter to the competent authority, but the statutory penalty under Section 20 is exclusively vested in the CIC / SIC. Always raise penalty in the second appeal or a Section 18 complaint.

The cleanest method is to include a specific relief paragraph in your second-appeal petition:

“The PIO is liable to penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 at ₹250 per day for [X] days of delay from [date of statutory deadline] to [date of compliance / hearing date], amounting to ₹[calculated amount], subject to the maximum of ₹25,000. The appellant requests this Commission to issue a show-cause notice to the PIO and, after hearing, impose the penalty.”

You do not need to file a separate petition for penalty if it is included in the second appeal.

If your problem was that the RTI application itself was not accepted (not that information was refused), the correct track is a complaint under Section 18 rather than a second appeal. File a Section 18 complaint at dsscic.nic.in, citing the non-acceptance and requesting penalty. The Commission can treat it as a complaint + penalty proceeding simultaneously.

Use this as a standalone letter accompanying your second-appeal petition, or as the core of your Section 18 complaint:

BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Second Appeal under Section 19(3) read with Section 20 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 — Penalty Request)

Appellant:     [Your full name, address, mobile, email]

Respondent:    The Public Information Officer,
               [Name, designation, address of PIO]

RTI Application No.: [REF]  Date of application: [DATE]
Statutory reply deadline:   [DATE = application date + 30 days]
Actual reply / order date:  [DATE or "not received till date"]

——

GROUNDS FOR INVOKING SECTION 20

1. The PIO's statutory obligation under Section 7(1) required a
   reply by [DEADLINE DATE]. As on [TODAY'S DATE], that obligation
   has not been discharged / was discharged after a delay of
   [NUMBER OF DAYS, counting from deadline to eventual reply or
   hearing date].

2. The delay / refusal was WITHOUT reasonable cause because:

   [CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY:]

   (a) No extension was sought under Section 7(3) by the prescribed
       date, nor was any intimation given to the applicant.

   (b) The PIO cited [state exemption / ground] which the Commission
       has now found / is submitted to be unfounded.

   (c) The PIO provided information that was incomplete / incorrect
       in the following specific respect: [describe].

   (d) The records sought exist in the public authority's files as
       evidenced by [describe: other RTI response / RTI application
       to the same department / official document that refers to the
       record].

   (e) Despite a first-appeal order dated [FAA ORDER DATE] directing
       disclosure, the PIO has not complied, demonstrating mala fide
       or deliberate obstruction under Section 20(1)(f).

3. CALCULATION OF PENALTY (for the Commission's record):

   Days of default: [date of statutory deadline] to [date of
   compliance / hearing] = [X] days.
   Penalty at ₹250/day: ₹[250 × X].
   Statutory cap: ₹25,000.
   Penalty sought: ₹[lower of calculated amount or ₹25,000].

4. DISCIPLINARY ACTION (Section 20(2)):

   [If applicable] The PIO has [repeatedly violated the RTI Act in
   earlier applications / deliberately misled the applicant / acted
   in a manner that establishes mala fide intent] as evidenced by
   [describe]. The appellant requests the Commission to recommend
   disciplinary action under Section 20(2) to the competent
   authority.

5. RELIEF SOUGHT under Section 20:

   (a) Issue a show-cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty
       should not be imposed under Section 20(1).

   (b) After hearing, impose penalty at ₹250 per day for the period
       of default up to ₹25,000.

   (c) Direct that the penalty be recovered from the PIO's salary.

   (d) Recommend disciplinary action under Section 20(2) if the
       Commission finds mala fide conduct.

Date: [DD/MM/YYYY]
Signature: ___________________
[Your full name]

1. The Commission issues a show-cause notice to the PIO (not just the public authority).
2. The PIO must file a written reply explaining the delay or refusal.
3. A hearing is scheduled — video conference in most CIC cases. Both you and the PIO are called.
4. If the PIO shows a valid reason (e.g., the information was genuinely under creation, there was a legitimate ongoing inquiry), the Commission may not impose penalty.
5. If the Commission is satisfied there was no reasonable cause, it imposes penalty in the final order. The penalty is recovered through salary deduction.
6. CIC penalty orders are published on the Commission's website and serve as public record.

CIC/NITI/A/2022/182093 (paraphrased): The applicant sought information about beneficiary lists under a central scheme. The PIO replied after 78 days without explanation. At the second appeal, the CIC found no reasonable cause for the delay, imposed ₹19,500 (78 days × ₹250) penalty on the PIO, and directed immediate disclosure. The amount was recovered from the next salary disbursement.

This illustrates that the penalty is not symbolic — it comes out of the PIO's personal earnings and is therefore an effective deterrent.

State SIC penalty. Section 20 applies identically at state level. File your penalty claim in the second appeal to the relevant SIC.

Multiple PIOs / transferred application. If the application was transferred and multiple PIOs contributed to the delay, the penalty applies to each separately for their respective delay period. Identify each PIO in your petition.

No second appeal needed if already pending. If you have a pending second appeal, simply submit a supplemental note to the Commission expressly requesting Section 20 action — you do not need to re-file.

Per application. Even if your application had 10 questions and all were refused, the total penalty is capped at ₹25,000 for that one application filing.

Yes. The RTI Act specifies that the penalty is to be paid by the PIO. It cannot be charged to the public authority's budget. In practice, it is deducted from salary by the accounts department after the Commission's order.

Sometimes, if the records genuinely lay outside the PIO's custody and the PIO took timely steps to transfer under Section 6(3). But if the PIO simply did nothing for 30 days and then claimed the records are elsewhere, the Commission will typically not accept that as reasonable cause.

Commissions have discretion in borderline cases. If you are dissatisfied with a Commission order that refused penalty, the remedy is a High Court writ (Article 226) against the Commission's order. This is rare and involves litigation. In most cases, it is not worth pursuing for the penalty alone.

• Second appeal petition template: Second appeal to CIC — full walkthrough
• First appeal for deemed refusal: Deemed refusal first appeal
• S.8 wrongful rejection appeal: S.8 rejection appeal template
• Build first appeal letters: First Appeal Builder
• Track RTI timelines: RTI Timeline Calculator
• Sample RTI applications: Sample RTI library
• CIC official portal: dsscic.nic.in