§20 penalty — Madras HC clarifications
Quick Reply: §20 penalty requires specific demonstration of mala fide or negligence; blanket penalties on technical delays set aside.
High Court of Madras · 2020-01-01 · Citation awaited
§20 penalty requires specific mala-fide or persistent-negligence finding; formal 30-day delay alone is insufficient.
Case details
| Court | High Court of Madras |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2020-01-01 |
| Citation | Citation awaited |
| Petitioner | PIO |
| Respondent | State Information Commission |
| RTI Act sections | §20(1) |
| Outcome | Partly allowed |
Keep RTI Wiki Free for Every Citizen 🇮🇳
Hosting, servers, and content cost ₹50,000+ per month. Your support keeps this resource alive.
Outcome
§20 penalty requires specific demonstration of mala fide or negligence; blanket penalties on technical delays set aside.
Ratio decidendi
A §20(1) penalty cannot be imposed merely because information was provided beyond the 30-day window. The Commission must record a specific finding of mala fide conduct or persistent negligence. Due diligence by the PIO, properly documented, is a defence.
Keywords
§20, penalty, mala fide, Madras HC, due diligence
Similar cases in the corpus
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.
- Pension sanction delay — Madras HC (HC-MAD 2022)
- Defying Commission order — Madras HC (HC-MAD 2020)
- Bhagat Singh v. CIC (HC-DEL 2007)
- PIO reasoned orders — Bombay HC (HC-BOM 2014)
Related
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.
Reader signal
Was this article useful?
Tap once if it helped you. These counters show other citizens which pages are worth reading.