Table of Contents
PIO designation and accountability — Delhi HC
High Court of Delhi · 2016-01-01 · Citation awaited
Non-designation of PIO under §5 is no defence; §7(1) obligations bind the public authority itself.
Case details
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2016-01-01 |
| Citation | Citation awaited |
| Petitioner | RTI applicant |
| Respondent | Public authority |
| RTI Act sections | §5, §20 |
| Outcome | Applicant allowed |
Outcome
Public authority that fails to designate a PIO under §5 cannot be relieved of §7(1) obligations.
Ratio decidendi
Where a public authority has failed to designate a PIO under §5, the statutory obligations under §7(1) continue to bind the public authority. Failure attracts §20 liability traceable to the Head of Institution.
Keywords
§5, PIO designation, Delhi HC, §20
Similar cases in the corpus
These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.
- Arvind Kejriwal v. CPIO (HC-DEL 2010)
- PIO transfer during pendency — Calcutta HC (HC-CAL 2019)
- Public servant posting/transfer orders — Delhi HC (HC-DEL 2019)
- PMNRF coverage under RTI — CIC ruling (CIC 2015)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · last reviewed 21 April 2026.
Discussion