• Section 20(1) — penalty up to Rs 25,000 for (a) refusing to receive, (b) not furnishing in time, © malafide denial, (d) knowingly giving incorrect information, (e) destroying records, (f) obstructing disclosure.
• Section 20(2) — Commission “may recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO under the service rules applicable to him”.
• Section 5(5) — deemed CPIO is also personally liable.
• Section 19(8)(b) — compensation to applicant (this IS a department 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.

• Manohar Parrikar v. Shripad Balkrishna Desai, SC (2013) — personal liability of officers confirmed.
• Mujibur Rahman v. CIC, (2009) Delhi HC — commission can impose penalty after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.
• Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CPIO SC, (2020) 5 SCC 481 — CIC has supervisory powers to track penalty recovery.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

• The RTI Act, 2005
• Deemed CPIO — Section 5(5)
• Speaking-order requirement — Section 7(8)
• First Appeal template
• Second Appeal template
• Tracking your CIC appeal

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