• Refused to receive an application.
• Not furnished information within the time specified.
• Malafide denied the request.
• Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
• Destroyed information which was the subject of the request.
• Obstructed in any manner the furnishing of the information.

Rs 250 per day from the day the information was due, capped at Rs 25,000. For a 30-day delay, the daily penalty capped at Rs 7,500; for a 100-day delay, the full ceiling applies.

The Commission “may recommend disciplinary action” against the PIO under the service rules. This is a separate consequence — it goes on the officer's permanent service file. Some Commissions use it to signal seriousness even when the monetary penalty has been avoided (e.g. where the officer shows cause).

• CIC imposed 2,341 personal penalty orders aggregating over Rs 3.8 crore.
• Only ~35 percent recovered from officer salaries; rest stuck in departmental processing.
• CIC in Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC, (2020) 5 SCC 481 noted the need for officer-wise recovery reports.

• Mujibur Rahman v. CIC, Delhi HC — reasonable opportunity of hearing is mandatory before imposing Section 20 penalty.
• Manohar Parrikar v. Shripad Balkrishna Desai, SC (2013) — confirms personal liability.
• CIC practice directions have repeatedly clarified that the penalty cannot be recovered from the public exchequer.

In the second appeal:

The CPIO, Shri [Name], Designation [X], has persistently
failed to dispose of the appellant's RTI application and
has given evasive, non-speaking replies. The pattern
demonstrates mala fides under Section 20(1).

The appellant prays that:
(a) The maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 be imposed on the
    CPIO personally under Section 20(1);
(b) Disciplinary action be recommended to the cadre-
    controlling authority under Section 20(2);
(c) The recovery be made from the CPIO's salary directly,
    with a recovery certificate placed on record.

• Back to the full RTI Act
• Section 5 — Deemed CPIO chain
• Section 7 — Timelines
• Section 19 — Appeals
• Vicarious liability — detailed
• Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5)
• Second Appeal template (with Section 20 prayer)

1. RTI Act, 2005, Section 20.
2. Mujibur Rahman v. CIC, Delhi HC.
3. Manohar Parrikar v. Shripad Balkrishna Desai, SC (2013).
4. CPIO SC v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
5. CIC Annual Report 2023-24.

Last reviewed on: 21 April 2026