Section 20 RTI Act: Penalty on the PIO (How to Demand)

§20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 gives the Central or State Information Commission the power to impose a penalty on a Public Information Officer who has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive an RTI application, failed to reply on time, given misleading information, destroyed records, or obstructed the supply of information. The penalty is Rs. 250 per day of delay, capped at Rs. 25,000. The Commission also has the power under §20(2) to recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules. The penalty is on the PIO personally, not on the public authority. The Commission does not impose §20 on its own; the Appellant must demand it in the Second Appeal.

§20 has three sub-sections:

1. §20(1). The Commission shall impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, up to Rs. 25,000, on a PIO who has, without reasonable cause, committed any of the six listed breaches.
2. §20(2). Where the Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, considers the PIO has acted as listed in §20(1) persistently, it shall recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the applicable service rules.
3. §20 proviso. The PIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed.

The penalty is on the PIO personally, deducted from the PIO's salary by the public authority. The public authority itself does not pay. This is the deterrent design of §20.

§20(1) lists six grounds. Each one needs the words “without reasonable cause” proved.

1. Refusing to receive the RTI application. The PIO at the front desk refuses to accept the envelope or refuses to issue a receipt.
2. Not furnishing information within the time specified under §7(1). No reply within 30 days (or 48 hours for life-or-liberty matters) and no §11 third-party process either.
3. Malafidely denying the request for information. A refusal coloured by bad faith, retaliation, or extraneous reasons.
4. Knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. The PIO has supplied a reply, but the reply is wrong and the PIO knew it.
5. Destroying information subject to the request. The record existed when the application was filed and was destroyed after.
6. Obstructing in any manner the furnishing of information. A catch-all covering procedural obstruction (transferring the file laterally, sending the applicant on chase across departments, refusing inspection).

Each of these grounds is a separate basis for the §20 prayer. A single Second Appeal often invokes two or three.

The penalty is Rs. 250 per day of delay, capped at Rs. 25,000. The maximum cap is reached on Day 100 of the delay.

The Commission counts the days from the statutory deadline the PIO missed, to the date of the Commission's order (or the date the information was finally supplied, whichever is earlier).

Example calculation:

• RTI filed: 1 January 2026.
• §7(1) deadline: 31 January 2026.
• PIO supplied information: 30 April 2026.
• Delay: 89 days.
• Penalty: 89 × Rs. 250 = Rs. 22,250.

If the PIO is still in default at the date of the Commission's order, the cap of Rs. 25,000 kicks in at 100 days of delay.

The First Appellate Authority does not have the power to impose a §20 penalty. The FAA's powers under §19(6) cover review, direction to disclose, and costs, but not penalty.

However, the First Appeal is the right place to lay the foundation for a §20 prayer at the Second Appeal stage. Include:

1. A specific paragraph in the grounds listing the §20(1) triggers the PIO has hit.
2. A request for the FAA to record the PIO's reasons. §19(6) requires reasons in the order. An unreasoned order is a separate ground for §20 (obstruction).
3. A note: §20 will be pressed at the next stage if the breach is not remedied.

This paper-trail strengthens the Second Appeal §20 prayer.

The Second Appeal to the Central or State Information Commission is the only forum with §20 power. The prayer block of the Second Appeal must include the §20 demand explicitly:

• Set aside the FAA's order.
• Direct disclosure under §19(8)(a).
• Award costs under §19(8)(b).
• *“Impose a penalty under §20(1) on the Respondent No. 1 (PIO) at Rs. 250 per day for the unreasonable refusal and delay.”*
• Recommend disciplinary action under §20(2) if the PIO has acted in this way persistently.

In the grounds section, name which §20(1) trigger the PIO has hit. A bare §20 prayer without grounds rarely succeeds. Read the matching template at the Second Appeal format guide.

The Commission's penalty order goes to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) of the public authority where the PIO works. The DDO deducts the penalty amount from the PIO's salary in instalments and remits it to the consolidated fund of India (for Central PIOs) or the State (for State PIOs).

The PIO has the right to challenge the recovery in a writ petition under Article 226. In practice, few PIOs do. The reputational cost of a §20 order is higher than the cash cost.

§20(2) goes beyond the cash penalty. Where the PIO has acted in a §20(1) manner persistently (defined by the Commission as 3+ instances or a pattern), the Commission shall recommend disciplinary action under the PIO's service rules.

Service rules typically include warnings, censure, withholding of increments, withholding of promotion, reduction in rank, and dismissal. The discipline is run by the PIO's parent department; the Commission only recommends.

To invoke §20(2):

1. Cite the PIO's record on other RTI complaints if known. The CIC's annual report at cic.gov.in lists penalised PIOs.
2. Annex copies of other appellants' Second Appeal orders against the same PIO, where available.
3. Ask in the prayer: “Recommend disciplinary action under §20(2) for persistent breach.”

• Kishan Lal Bhati v. Police Commissioner Mumbai (CIC, 2010). PIO imposed Rs. 25,000 (full cap) for ignoring a life-or-liberty matter under §7(1) proviso.
• Anand Singh v. SBI (CIC, 2013). Rs. 20,000 imposed on a PIO who supplied “knowingly incomplete” reply.
• Vinod Vrindavan v. CBI (CIC, 2016). Rs. 25,000 on the CBI PIO for obstruction; CIC also recommended §20(2) disciplinary action under CBI service rules.
• Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. ICAI (CIC, 2018). Rs. 10,000 on the ICAI PIO for delayed disclosure of council meeting minutes.
• Commodore Lokesh K. Batra v. President of India's Secretariat (CIC, 2014). Rs. 25,000 on the PIO for repeated denial of records on Padma Awards process.

Cite the closest case to your facts in the grounds.

Even where the breach is clear, the Commission sometimes declines §20. Reasons noted in CIC orders:

• PIO showed reasonable cause. Genuine staff shortage, file lost in office relocation, missing PIO during a long medical leave.
• First-time breach by a new PIO. Some Benches give a warning instead of a penalty.
• Appellant did not press §20 in the prayer. The Commission rarely imposes §20 sua sponte.
• Information was supplied before the Commission's order. Late but pre-order disclosure often softens the penalty.
• PIO has retired. The §20 order is harder to enforce against a retired officer.

Frame your §20 prayer to anticipate these defences. Address each one in the grounds.

No. §20 is a Commission-only power. The FAA's powers under §19(6) are review, direction to disclose, and costs. §20 is reserved for the Central or State Information Commission at the Second Appeal stage.

By the PIO personally. §20(2) directs recovery from the PIO's salary in instalments through the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The public authority does not foot the bill.

Between 8 and 24 months from filing, per the CIC's pendency report. Some State Commissions take longer. The Commission decides the §20 prayer along with the main appeal.

Rarely. The Commission has discretion under §20(1) but in practice waits for the Appellant to press the prayer. Always include §20 explicitly in the Second Appeal prayer block.

Yes. §20 proviso requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The PIO appears at the hearing along with the FAA. The Commission asks the PIO to explain the delay or refusal. The §20 order follows the hearing.

§20(1) is a cash penalty recovered from the PIO's salary, up to Rs. 25,000. §20(2) is a recommendation to the PIO's department for disciplinary action under service rules (warning, censure, withholding of increments). The two are independent and the Commission orders both in serious cases.

The §20 power survives retirement. Enforcement is harder. The Commission has imposed §20 on retired PIOs in Vinod Vrindavan v. CBI (2016) and similar cases. Recovery is from pension under the service rules.

• RTI Application Format 2026
• First Appeal Format with grounds checklist
• Second Appeal to CIC, format + penalty
• RTI time-limit cheat sheet
• Penalty provisions for the PIO, deeper guide
• §20 of the RTI Act, full text
• The RTI Playbook. The complete guide to filing RTI in 2026.

• The Right to Information Act, 2005. §20(1), §20(2), §20 proviso, §19(3), §7(1).
• Central Information Commission. cic.gov.in.
• Department of Personnel and Training. dopt.gov.in.
• Indian Kanoon, case texts. indiankanoon.org.

Last reviewed: 28 May 2026, RTI Wiki editorial team.