Section 20 RTI penalty: Rs 250 a day, limit and process

Section 20 protects the RTI process, but it is often misunderstood. An applicant may place the facts and ask the Commission to consider the section. The Commission—not the applicant, FAA or public authority's grievance officer—decides whether to issue show cause and impose a penalty.

Read the exact text in the Department of Personnel and Training's updated Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 20(1) applies where the Commission, while deciding a complaint or appeal, forms the required opinion that the PIO, without reasonable cause:

1. refused to receive an RTI application;
2. did not furnish information within the time specified in section 7(1);
3. malafidely denied the request;
4. knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;
5. destroyed information that was the subject of the request; or
6. obstructed furnishing the information in any manner.

Match evidence to one or more statutory grounds. “The reply was bad” is not enough. Show the request date, lawful deadline, response, record contradiction or act of obstruction.

The Act says Rs 250 for each day until the application is received or information is furnished, subject to a total ceiling of Rs 25,000. The relevant start and end points depend on the ground and procedural history.

Do not mechanically write “30 days late × Rs 250” without checking:

1. the correct receipt date;
2. whether an APIO route added statutory time;
3. whether transfer provisions affected which authority received the request;
4. whether third-party procedure lawfully applied;
5. whether a different section 7 deadline governed;
6. the date information was actually furnished;
7. whether the PIO proves reasonable cause.

The ceiling means the Commission cannot impose more than Rs 25,000 under section 20(1) for the penalty being determined. The amount is recovered from the PIO's salary in the manner directed; it is not paid to the applicant.

Delay establishes an important fact, but Section 20 also uses the phrase “without any reasonable cause”. A Commission must consider the explanation and make the statutory decision. A marginal or explained delay does not become a penalty merely because the applicant requests the maximum.

An official Delhi High Court judgment dated 9 October 2025 reiterates that penalty is not justified merely from delay where the record does not establish the required deliberate or mala fide conduct and the explanation is accepted. This does not excuse routine silence; it requires a reasoned application of Section 20 to the evidence.

Before penalty is imposed, the PIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The proviso then places the burden on the PIO to prove that he or she acted reasonably and diligently.

Useful questions for a show-cause record include:

1. When did the PIO receive or become responsible for the request?
2. What action was recorded on each date?
3. Was assistance sought under section 5(4), and from whom?
4. Was a transfer made, with proof and date?
5. What prevented timely disclosure?
6. When was the obstacle removed?
7. Was the applicant informed?
8. Does the file support the explanation?

An oral claim of staff shortage or “file not traceable” should be compared with dispatch, movement, assistance and search records.

Section 20(2) is separate. Where the Commission forms the specified opinion that a PIO has, without reasonable cause and persistently, failed in the listed ways, it shall recommend disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to that PIO.

This is not an extra cash payment and not an immediate dismissal order. It is a statutory recommendation to the competent disciplinary authority under the relevant service rules. The requirement of persistent failure and the record supporting it matter.

Section 20 names the Central or State Public Information Officer. An officer whose assistance was sought under section 5(4) can, for contravention purposes, be treated as a PIO under section 5(5). The record must show the responsibility rather than imposing liability on every person copied on the file.

The First Appellate Authority is not named as a Section 20 penalty target merely by being the FAA. Other administrative consequences may exist under service law, but do not rewrite the text of Section 20.

Keep three requests separate:

An applicant who suffered loss should identify the loss, causal link and evidence when asking for compensation. Do not call the Rs 25,000 penalty “my compensation”.

Before the hearing, prepare:

Use documents rather than adjectives. If an information page existed on the authority's website, preserve the dated copy. If records later appeared, identify when and who supplied them.

Avoid declaring the PIO guilty. Invite the Commission to apply the provision:

The application was received on [date]. The applicable response period expired
on [date]. Information was [not furnished / furnished on date / supplied with the
identified incorrect or incomplete statements]. The relevant documents are at
pages [x-y].

The appellant respectfully requests the Commission to consider Section 20(1),
issue such show-cause notice as it finds warranted, identify the officer responsible,
and pass a reasoned order after the statutory opportunity and burden of proof.
The request for disclosure and any supported compensation are made separately.

Where persistent conduct is documented, identify earlier orders or repeated failures and separately request consideration under section 20(2). Do not cite unverified case numbers from blogs.

Read the order carefully. It may accept an explanation, find the wrong officer was named, decide that the statutory ground was not proved, or omit a reasoned discussion. The correct next step depends on the order and the High Court's judicial-review jurisdiction—not a further RTI appeal.

RTI can seek administrative records about recovery of a penalty already ordered or action on a disciplinary recommendation. It cannot be used to interrogate a Commission about its judicial reasoning beyond the signed order.

For an evidence-based RTI or appeal draft, use The RTI Playbook or the RTI Assistant.

No. The applicable deadline must be calculated, a Section 20 ground must be established and the PIO's reasonable-cause explanation must be considered by the Commission.

Rs 25,000. The daily statutory rate is Rs 250, subject to that ceiling.

No. It is recovered from the PIO. Compensation to an applicant is a separate power under section 19(8)(b).

Section 20 names the PIO. Do not treat the FAA as a penalty target solely because the first appeal was poorly decided.

The proviso to section 20(1) places that burden on the PIO once the penalty issue is considered.

No. The statutory ground uses “knowingly”. Compare the response with the actual records and evidence of responsibility; an error and knowing misinformation are not automatically the same.

Section 20(1) provides the monetary penalty. Section 20(2) concerns a recommendation for disciplinary action where the statutory persistent-failure test is met.

An applicant may request consideration, but the Commission calculates and decides the penalty from the proved dates, grounds, responsibility and reasonable-cause record.

• Department of Personnel and Training: updated Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 5, 7, 19 and 20
• Delhi High Court judgment dated 9 October 2025 on Section 20 discretion

Return to RTI Wiki home.

Reviewed against official sources on 29 August 2026. Apply the current Act, binding court decisions and the facts of the individual record.