Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>
+metatag-keywords=(section 19 8 rti, faa powers rti, cost order rti, penalty referral rti)
+metatag-description=(Complete guide to §19(8) — the FAA's statutory powers to direct disclosure, impose costs, and refer for §20 penalty. Often underused; powerful when applied.)
+}}
+====== FAA powers under §19(8) — direction, cost, penalty referral (2026) ======
+{{ :social:auto:faa-section-19-8-powers.png?direct&1200 }}
+{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}
+<WRAP info>
+§19(8) of the RTI Act vests the FAA with three principal powers: (a) require the public authority to take any specific steps necessary to comply with the Act, (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or detriment, (c) impose any of the penalties under §20. Most FAAs use only (a) — directing disclosure. The full suite of powers, applied correctly, is the strongest deterrent against PIO non-compliance.
+</WRAP>
+===== Statutory framework =====
+RTI Act §19(8)(a)–(c); §19(8)(c) referral for §20 penalty; §19(7) binding nature of FAA decision; §20(1) penalty range.
+===== Key principles =====
+  * §19(8)(a) — directing PA to take specific steps for Act compliance.
+  * §19(8)(b) — compensating the complainant for loss/detriment.
+  * §19(8)(c) — imposing or recommending §20 penalty.
+  * Cost imposition is independent of any ground for appeal — the FAA can do it on its own.
+  * Penalty referral is mandatory in patterns of repeated non-compliance.
+  * FAA orders are binding under §19(7) — non-compliance attracts further proceedings.
+===== Decision framework =====
+  - **Hear the appeal on merits** — Standard speaking-order analysis as per checklist.
+  - **Identify direction needs under §19(8)(a)** — What specific steps must PA take? E.g., "designate Asstt PIOs at sub-divisional level"; "publish §4 categories within 60 days".
+  - **Compute compensation under §19(8)(b)** — Did applicant suffer demonstrable loss (additional travel, repeat applications, missed deadlines)? Quantify.
+  - **Assess penalty under §19(8)(c)** — Was PIO's delay/denial unjustified? Pattern of similar conduct? Calculate as Rs 250/day up to Rs 25,000.
+  - **Choose remedy combination** — Direction + cost + (referral OR direct penalty if applicable).
+  - **Document reasoning** — Cite the specific evidence supporting each remedy.
+  - **Issue order with timeline + accountability** — Compliance reports back to FAA — not just one-time direction.
+===== Template =====
+<code>
+ORDER under §19 — In the matter of First Appeal of [Applicant] v [Respondent PIO]
+Having heard the parties and considered the record:
+. ON MERITS: The appeal is ALLOWED for the reasons recorded above. The PIO's reliance on §[X] is unsustainable.
+. DIRECTION under §19(8)(a):
+   The respondent PIO is directed to:
+   (i) Provide complete information sought in queries [1, 3, 5] within 15 days of receipt of this order, free of any additional fee.
+   (ii) Publish the information sought as part of suo-moto disclosure under §4(1)(b) within 60 days.
+   (iii) Submit a compliance report to this Authority within 21 days.
+. COMPENSATION under §19(8)(b):
+   The appellant is awarded compensation of Rs 5,000 for the additional travel and repeat-application costs caused by the impugned denial. This shall be paid by the public authority within 30 days.
+. PENALTY under §19(8)(c):
+   The PIO has caused unjustified delay of [X days] and provided a frivolous denial. The matter is referred to the [Central / State] Information Commission under §20(1) for considering penalty action of Rs 250/day up to Rs 25,000.
+. The public authority is also directed to consider the institutional pattern of similar denials at this office and report on remedial measures within 90 days.
+Aggrieved parties may file second appeal under §19(3) within 90 days.
+[FAA Name, Designation, Office Stamp, Date]
+</code>
+===== Illustrations =====
+==== Repeat denial of beneficiary list (welfare scheme) ====
+Direction (release) + Cost (Rs 5K applicant compensation) + Referral (§20 penalty for serial denial).
+==== PIO unilaterally charged Rs 50/page over schedule ====
+Direction (refund excess) + Cost (admin overhead Rs 2K) + Departmental note to PA.
+==== Bulk denial of file notings citing §8(1)(i) ====
+Direction (apply Subhash Chandra Agarwal line) + Cost + Penalty referral if pattern.
+==== PIO failed §6(3) transfer leading to deemed refusal ====
+Direction (transfer + reply) + Compensation for delay + §20(1) referral.
+===== Case law anchors =====
+  * **CIC, Re: General OK (CIC 2009)** — FAA must use full suite of §19(8) powers, not just (a).
+  * **Krishak Bharati v PIO, Punjab (Delhi HC 2014)** — Cost orders under §19(8)(b) are sustainable on appeal.
+  * **CIC, Re: Recurring Defaults (CIC 2018)** — Patterns of non-compliance warrant systematic FAA + IC action.
+  * **Subhash Chandra Agarwal line of cases** — Penalty under §20 is mandatory where PIO's conduct is unjustified.
+===== Common mistakes =====
+  * Using only §19(8)(a) direction — leaving cost + penalty powers unused.
+  * Failing to quantify applicant's actual loss for §19(8)(b) compensation.
+  * Not referring serial offenders for §20 penalty under §19(8)(c).
+  * Non-binding language in directions ("PIO is requested to..."). Use mandatory language.
+  * Not ordering compliance reports — directions then disappear into the void.
+  * Forgetting §19(7) — FAA orders are binding; non-compliance attracts further FAA / IC action.
+===== Pro tips =====
+  * Build a "remedy menu" — for each common scenario, predetermined direction + cost + referral combination.
+  * Use compliance reporting requirement — keeps PA accountable.
+  * For pattern cases (e.g., 5 similar denials at same office), consider general direction to PA leadership.
+  * Don't shy from cost imposition — Rs 1K-5K compensation creates serious deterrent.
+  * Make penalty referrals SPECIFIC — name PIO, dates, conduct, statutory provision violated.
+  * Coordinate with Information Commission for systemic issues — joint review is powerful.
+===== FAQs =====
+==== Can FAA itself impose §20 penalty? ====
+No — only the Information Commission can impose §20(1) penalty. FAA refers under §19(8)(c).
+==== Are FAA cost orders enforceable? ====
+Yes — they are binding under §19(7). Non-payment attracts further proceedings.
+==== Can FAA direct PA to publish information suo-moto? ====
+Yes — under §19(8)(a) for §4 compliance. Powerful systemic remedy.
+==== What if PIO doesn't comply with FAA direction? ====
+Applicant moves IC under §19(3); IC can impose §20 penalty for FAA-non-compliance too.
+==== How specific should the §19(8)(c) referral be? ====
+Very specific: identify PIO, dates of conduct, sections violated, penalty calculation. IC adopts referrals as starting point.
+===== Related reading =====
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|pio faa knowledge base]]
+  * [[:faa-appellate-review-checklist|faa appellate review checklist]]
+  * [[:faa-privacy-public-interest-balancing|faa privacy public interest balancing]]
+  * [[:act:section-19|act/section-19]]
+  * [[:act:section-20|act/section-20]]
+===== Sources =====
+RTI Act §19(8); CIC compendium 2007-2024; Krishak Bharati v PIO (Delhi HC 2014); FAA practitioner manuals.
+//Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.//
+{{tag>pio-faa pio rti-act-2005 faa-section-19-8-powers}}

Was this helpful? — views