Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005 empowers the Central / State Information Commission to impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay, subject to a cap of Rs 25,000, on a Public Information Officer who (a) refuses to receive an RTI application, (b) fails to respond within Section 7(1), © malafidely denies information, (d) provides incorrect / incomplete / misleading information, or (e) destroys information. The penalty is recovered from the PIO's personal salary. Section 20(2) additionally empowers the Commission to recommend disciplinary action. Hearing opportunity under the proviso is mandatory; due-diligence is a defence.

Section 20(1) — Whenever the Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, is of opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause:

1. refused to receive an application for information, OR
2. not furnished information within the time specified under §7(1), OR
3. malafidely denied the request for information, OR
4. knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, OR
5. destroyed information which was the subject of the request, OR
6. obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information

→ … it shall impose a penalty of Rs 250 each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, that the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed Rs 25,000.

Section 20(1) proviso — The PIO shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed.

Section 20(1) burden proviso — The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the PIO.

Section 20(2) — Where the Commission is of opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to do the acts listed above, it shall recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to him.

The PIO (or the designated office) refused to take the application at the counter, insisted it be filed elsewhere, demanded unrelated identity proofs, or tore up the application. Written acknowledgement slip should always be demanded — if refused, retain postal proof of dispatch as alternative evidence.

The most common trigger. The 30-day window from receipt (or 48 hours for life-and-liberty) ended without a response. §7(2) creates deemed refusal. The PIO's inaction = §20(1)(b).

The PIO issued a §7(8)(i) rejection but with malafide intent — i.e., knowing the information was disclosable, or inventing a §8 ground without factual basis. Evidence: inconsistency with prior practice, contradiction with the department's own §4 disclosure, admission in later proceedings.

The PIO gave wrong data knowingly. Evidence: the actual record exists and contradicts the reply. This also includes “partially-answered” replies that dodge the specific ask.

A record existed when the RTI was filed; was destroyed before or during the disposal window. This is the most serious trigger — can attract both §20(1) penalty AND criminal liability under the IPC.

Catch-all — any other conduct that obstructs furnishing of information. Examples: unilaterally demanding additional fees without §7(3) intimation, citing non-existent State Rules, requiring applicant visit in person without cause.

Arithmetic: Rs 25,000 ÷ Rs 250 = 100 days of delay hits the cap.

A PIO who delays by 30 days beyond the §7(1) window: Rs 250 × 30 = Rs 7,500. 60 days: Rs 15,000. 100 days or more: Rs 25,000 (capped).

The start date is typically day 31 (day after §7(1) expiry, not day 1). Commissions sometimes start from the day the applicant first complained or the Commission issued notice.

1. Notice to the PIO — the Commission issues a show-cause notice specifying the trigger conduct and the number of days.
2. Reasonable opportunity of being heard — the PIO appears (in person or written) and raises defences.
3. Burden of proof on PIO — the PIO must show that any of the trigger conducts did NOT occur with intent / negligence, or that he acted reasonably and diligently.
4. Order — the Commission issues a reasoned order specifying the penalty amount and recovery path.
5. Recovery — from the PIO's salary by the department, via the Head of Office.

• Records genuinely unavailable and steps taken to retrieve — with documentary proof (intra-department correspondence seeking the records).
• §7(3) additional-fee intimation issued properly — the clock was stopped by the applicant's non-payment.
• §6(3) transfer was effected within 5 days — at the receiving PIO now.
• §11 third-party consultation underway — 40-day window applies, not 30.
• PIO on approved long leave with documented handover — successor PIO should have been designated; if not, liability shifts to the Head of Institution.

• “My superior told me to reject orally” — §20 is personal; oral instructions don't shield.
• “The file is lost” — the Act requires record-keeping (§5 + §7); inability to produce = failure under §20.
• “Administrative load was high” — workload isn't a §20 exemption.
• “I didn't understand the RTI” — no such exemption.
• “Applicant is harassing me” — §6(2) bars motive inquiry; this defence backfires.

• Most §20 penalties are partially recovered — the PIO often seeks review, the department loses track, and the full Rs 25,000 is rarely collected.
• High-profile cases (recurring offender PIOs, flagged by activists) do see full recovery + §20(2) disciplinary notation in service file.
• Impact on career: recurring §20 orders in an officer's service book are hard to explain at promotion committees. This is often the real deterrent, not the money itself.

• Filing a bare-bones reply — “I did my best” — without documentary evidence of due diligence. Commission notes this as tacit admission.
• Contesting on purely-technical grounds — “the FAA didn't refer the matter correctly” — without addressing the substantive delay.
• Blaming the applicant — “the applicant should have filed a fresh RTI” — this is an abdication of the §6(3) transfer / §10 severance duty.
• Citing non-existent State circulars — Commissions verify.

The Act does NOT give the applicant a direct §20 petition right. §20 is invoked by the Commission either suo motu during the disposal of a §19(3) Second Appeal, OR on specific reference from the FAA.

What applicants can do:

1. In First Appeal — mention specific number of days of delay and flag §20 exposure.
2. In Second Appeal — request Commission to specifically consider §20 penalty against the named PIO.
3. In a §18 complaint — raise §20 directly.

• §20(1) = monetary penalty; one-off.
• §20(2) = disciplinary-action recommendation under service rules; goes to the officer's service book.

§20(2) is invoked for persistent failures — not a single delay, but a pattern. Commissions typically invoke §20(2) after 2-3 prior §20(1) orders against the same PIO.

• §20 penalty — Madras HC 2020 — specific mala fide or persistent negligence required; formal 30-day delay alone insufficient.
• PIO vacancy — §20 vicarious liability — CIC 2020 — Head of Institution liable where PIO unavailable.

• RTI Act §20 — annotated
• RTI against a government officer — can they retaliate?
• PIO RTI Reply Guide — how to draft so §20 doesn't apply
• RTI timelines cheat-sheet
• All cases turning on §20

Posted: 22 April 2026 · Author: Shrawan Pathak, Editor RTI Wiki