Table of Contents

Vicarious Liability under RTI — Who Actually Pays

Vicarious Liability under RTI — Who Actually Pays — RTI Wiki

⚠️ DPDP Rules, 2025 (14 Nov 2025) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act — public-interest override now under Section 8(2). Read the note →

· 2026/04/19 05:02 · 0 Comments

In one line: The Right to Information Act does not make the government vicariously liable for a delinquent CPIO. Under Section 20, the penalty is personal — Rs 250 per day up to Rs 25,000, payable by the officer from their own salary. The department cannot reimburse. Additionally, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action under the service rules. Both remedies can be imposed together.

Did you know? The Central Information Commission issued 2,341 personal penalty orders between 2005 and 2024, aggregating over Rs 3.8 crore. Yet recovery remains weak — only about 35 percent of imposed penalties are actually recovered, because departments often process payment from establishment accounts and later pass bills to the officer. The CIC in Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC noted that officer-wise recovery reports should be sought.

Personal vs department liability — the distinction

Remedy Who pays
Section 20 penalty (Rs 25,000) CPIO or deemed-CPIO personally
Section 20 disciplinary action CPIO personally (recorded in service file)
Section 19(8)(b) compensation to applicant Public authority (department budget)
Legal costs of defending CPIO's refusal Department pays, but can be directed to recover from CPIO

How to maximise personal liability

The Act creates personal liability but commissions often go light. These steps improve the odds:

  1. Name the erring officer specifically in your Section 19 appeal. Use the file-movement register evidence from a prior RTI.
  2. Cite pattern of delay or malice — does this CPIO have similar complaints?
  3. Prayer for both Section 20 penalty AND disciplinary action — ask for both.
  4. Attend the hearing personally — if virtual, join on time; if physical, bring the file-movement record.
  5. If penalty is imposed, follow up on recovery — ask for the recovery order copy by a fresh RTI 30 days later.

Landmark rulings

Sample appeal paragraph (Section 20 prayer)

The Public Information Officer, Shri [Name], Designation [X],
has persistently delayed, without reasonable cause, the
disposal of RTI applications from the appellant. The pattern
shows mala fides under Section 20(1). The appellant prays
that (a) a maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 be imposed on the
CPIO personally, (b) disciplinary action be recommended to
the cadre-controlling authority under Section 20(2), and
(c) the recovery be made from the CPIO's salary directly,
with a recovery certificate placed on record.

Frequently asked questions

Can the CPIO claim ignorance of the file's location as a defence?

No. Sections 5(4)-5(5) make the CPIO responsible for seeking assistance. Ignorance is not a defence; inaction is.

Can the department pay on the CPIO's behalf?

Departments sometimes do, but this is improper. The penalty is ad personam and should be recovered from the CPIO's salary. File an RTI asking for the recovery certificate to verify.

What is the ceiling on total penalty if multiple RTIs were delayed?

Each contravention attracts up to Rs 25,000. Multiple RTIs can compound to much higher aggregate penalty. The Commission has imposed Rs 50,000+ on single officers for pattern delays.

Call to action

If a CPIO has delayed or denied your RTI without reason, use the Section 20 prayer paragraph above in your first appeal and amplify it in the second appeal.

Sources

  1. Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 20, read with Sections 5(4)-5(5), 19(8).
  2. CIC Annual Report 2023-24.
  3. Manohar Parrikar v. Shripad Balkrishna Desai, SC (2013).
  4. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC, (2020) 5 SCC 481.

Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026

, , , , ,