Penalties
Commencement. Ss. 4(1), 5(1) (2), 12, 13, 15, 16, 24, 27, 28 (15-06-2005) and rest provisions on 120th day of its enactment.
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with penalties. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cau The Act was enacted on 15 Jun 2005.
(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.
Section 20, The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act 22 of 2005).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Manohar vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
State Information Commissions, being quasi-judicial bodies exercising adjudicatory functions with power to impose penalties and recommend disciplinary action having civil consequences, are bound by principles of natural justice including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Before recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act 2005, the Commission must provide a hearing to the concerned Public Information Officer. The grounds for such disciplinary action are exhaustive and limited to: persistent failure to receive application or furnish information within 30 days, mala fide denial, providing incorrect/incomplete/misleading information, destruction of information, or obstruction in furnishing information - all without reasonable cause. 'Negligence' alone is insufficient. The Commission must record reasoned findings that the default was persistent and without reasonable cause before recommending disciplinary action. The word 'shall' in Section 20(2) should be read as 'may', conferring discretion on the Commission to evaluate whether circumstances warrant recommendation based on the officer's explanation and the facts of the case.
On this section: Penalty provisions and requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing
-
Malappuram District Co. Op. Bank LTD vs State Information Commission
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Cooperative societies registered under state cooperative societies acts are not public authorities under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless they satisfy one of the statutory tests: (a) are established or constituted by Constitution, Parliament law, State Legislature law, or executive notification; or (b) are owned by the appropriate government; or (c) are controlled by the appropriate government with substantial control (not mere supervisory/regulatory control) over management and affairs; or (d) are substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government (meaning actual, existing, positive and real financing to substantial extent where body practically runs by such funding). The determination of whether a particular cooperative society meets these tests is a question of fact to be examined by the State Information Commission or Central Information Commission when disputed, on evidence. The burden of proof lies on the applicant seeking information or the government to demonstrate that a society satisfies one of these tests.
On this section: Penalties for non-compliance - establishes consequences for public authorities violating RTI Act obligations
-
Rakesh Kumar Gupta (CPIO, Union Bank of India) v. Central Information Commission
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment order-1.pdf 2021-01-22 DATE VERIFIED (Prathiba M. Singh J.). Upholds CIC penalty under RTI Act s.20 where CPIOs first claimed s.8(1)(d) commercial-confidence exemption then flipped to 'not traceable' after show-cause — mala fides / unreasonable conduct; CPIOs are not post offices and must diligently search; penalty reduced only because officers retired. Map RTI 20.
On this section: CIC penalty under s.20 upheld for mala fide flip from s.8(1)(d) claim to 'not traceable' after show-cause — CPIOs must diligently search.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 20
What have the courts held on Section 20 of the Right to Information Act?
Manohar vs State of Maharashtra (13 Dec 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Penalty provisions and requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: RTI Act 20, section 20 RTI Act, section 20 of the Right to Information Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Manohar vs State of Maharashtra (13 Dec 2012).
What should I read with Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 7 (Disposal of request), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When was Section 20 of the Right to Information Act enacted?
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, cited as RTI Act 20, was enacted on 15 Jun 2005 as Act 22 of 2005. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 19. Appeal669 words
- 7. Disposal of request657 words
- 4. Obligations of public authorities643 words
- 2. Definitions618 words
- 13. Terms of office and conditions of service530 words
- 8. Exemption from disclosure of information520 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.