🚨 RTI Accountability Under Scrutiny: A Case Study from the UP Information Commission

This analysis focuses on the procedural delays and non-compliance observed in a recent Second Appeal hearing before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), emphasizing the citizen’s efforts to obtain vital information regarding local development projects.

---

📍 Case Context: Focus on NIBI GAHRWAR Gram Panchayat

The core of this appeal (UPIC File No. S09/A/1103/2024) is the failure to disclose information about a specific village development project in the Panchayati Raj Department.

Detail	Specifics
Appellant	Shri Yogi M P Singh (Mirzapur)
Department	PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT
Office/Village	NIBI GAHRWAR Gram Panchayat, Block CHHANVEY, District MIRZAPUR
PIO Addressed	J.S.A./PIO Office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mirzapur
RTI Act Section	Second Appeal under Section 19(3)

The Core Information Withheld

The original RTI application (dated 10-01-2024) sought five specific and fundamental points of information concerning the developmental schemes executed in NIBI GAHRWAR Gram Panchayat over the last three years:

1. Estimates of executed developmental schemes.
2. Distribution of government fund for these schemes.
3. Work booklet details of the schemes.
4. Description of the release of government fund.
5. Wall painting details and the associated government expenditure.

---

⏳ The Core Issue: Statutory Failure and Procedural Lapses

The fundamental issue is the PIO’s violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, failing to provide the requested information within the mandatory 30 days. The PIO’s eventual reply (on 03-05-2024) was deemed “incomplete/unsatisfactory.”

Adding to the administrative failure, both the appellant and the opposing PIO failed to appear for three consecutive scheduled hearings before the State Information Commissioner.

---

⚖️ The Commission’s Direction

Despite the repeated non-attendance, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Smt. Shakuntala Gautam, firmly directed the PIO to correct the non-compliance:

The PIO is ordered to “dispose of the application of the appellant as per the rules and provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005″ and provide the information to the appellant before the next hearing date, along with evidence of compliance to the Commission.

The case remains adjourned until 29.01.2025, underscoring the Commission’s commitment to ensuring the information on the NIBI GAHRWAR village schemes is eventually disclosed.

---

This revision makes the specific location and the precise nature of the information sought much more prominent.

Would you like me to find out the provisions in the RTI Act for penalizing a PIO who fails to provide information in time?

That’s a very relevant follow-up, especially since the State Information Commissioner’s orders are an implicit warning of potential penalties.

Here is a brief summary of the penalty provisions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, primarily governed by Section 20.

---

⚖️ Penalties for PIO Non-Compliance (Section 20 of the RTI Act)

The Right to Information Act grants the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information Commission (SIC) the power to impose penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs) to ensure strict adherence to the law’s timelines and provisions.

1. Grounds for Imposing Penalty

A penalty can be imposed on a PIO if the Commission is of the opinion that, without any reasonable cause, the PIO has:

• Refused to receive an RTI application.
• Not furnished the information within the mandatory 30 days (or 48 hours in life/liberty cases).
• Malafidely denied the request for information.
• Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
• Destroyed information that was the subject of the request.
• Obstructed in any manner the furnishing of information.

2. Quantum of Penalty

The penalty is calculated as a fine levied on the PIO personally:

• Rate: ₹250 per day.
• Calculation: The penalty is imposed for every day the delay occurs until the information is finally provided or the application is received.
• Maximum Limit: The total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.

3. Personal Liability

The penalty is deducted directly from the salary of the PIO and cannot be paid by the Public Authority (the government department). This provision ensures personal accountability.

4. Recommendation for Disciplinary Action

In addition to the financial penalty, Section 20(2) empowers the Commission to recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the relevant service rules applicable to the officer. This is often done in cases of persistent non-compliance or serious misconduct.

Key Condition: Burden of Proof

Crucially, before a penalty is imposed, the PIO must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, the burden of proving that they acted reasonably and diligently rests entirely upon the PIO, not the applicant or the Commission.

---

This framework is the “teeth” of the RTI Act and is the mechanism the State Information Commissioner could employ if the PIO in the Mirzapur case continues to fail in his duty before the next hearing on 29.01.2025.

🛑 Summary of the Final Order and Reason for Disposal (Date: 07.03.2025)

The analysis of the final order (dated 07.03.2025) confirms that the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Shakuntala Gautam, has Disposed of your Second Appeal (File No. S09/A/1103/2024).

This is a critical point. To definitively answer whether the Public Information Officer (PIO) attended the latest proceeding, and to clarify the PIO’s legal obligations, let’s analyze the final order and the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.

---

1. Did the PIO Attend the Final Proceeding?

Based on the final order of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (dated 07.03.2025), the answer is: No, the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not attend the final proceeding.

The order explicitly states:

“आज पत्रावली पेश हुई। पुकार करायी गयी। उभयपक्ष अनुपस्थित हैं।” 1

(Today the file was presented. The call was made. Both parties are absent.)

Therefore, the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner noted that both the Appellant and the PIO were absent on the final hearing date (07.03.2025). ²

2. Does the Law Privilege the PIO Not to Entertain the RTI Application?

No, there is absolutely no provision in the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, that provides any privilege to the Public Information Officer (PIO) to ignore or not entertain an RTI application, especially when the matter is under the monitoring of the State Information Commission (SIC).

On the contrary, the law mandates the following duties and provides for penalties if they are not met:

A. PIO’s Statutory Duty (Under the Act)

Provision	Mandate	Implication in Your Case
Section 7(1)	Requires the PIO to provide the information or reject the application (stating reasons) within 30 days of receiving it.	The PIO failed this basic duty, leading to the First and Second Appeals.
Section 19(4)	Requires the PIO to comply with the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) or the Information Commission (SIC).	The SIC’s previous orders explicitly directed the PIO to dispose of the application and provide information. Ignoring these orders is a direct violation of the law.

B. Penalty for Non-Compliance (Section 20)

The PIO’s repeated failure to provide the information and their absence from the Commission’s proceedings constitutes a serious violation, making them liable for penalties under Section 20.

• If the Commission finds that the PIO has without any reasonable cause failed to furnish the information or obstructed the process, the Commission shall impose a penalty.
• The penalty is ₹250 per day until the information is supplied, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.

The fact that the PIO failed to attend the hearings and failed to comply with the Commission’s prior orders makes them subject to these punitive provisions. Your claim that the PIO “did not entertain the RTI application Even after the orders of the commission” is the very grounds upon which a penalty should be sought.

🔑 Your Path Forward

As discussed previously, your next step should be to file a Restoration Application combined with a strong Penalty/Contempt Petition, focusing heavily on the PIO’s repeated absence and willful non-compliance with the Commission’s orders on all scheduled dates (01.10.2024, 07.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 29.01.2025, and 07.03.2025).

You’ve raised a powerful and fundamental argument based on the principles of Administrative Law—the right to a reasoned order. The Indian Supreme Court has indeed emphasized that giving reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial and administrative system, as it ensures transparency and prevents arbitrary action.

The short answer is: The explicit reason for the disposal of your appeal in this order is based on your absence, not the PIO’s compliance. The order, however, fails to provide a clear, reasoned justification for letting the PIO go “scot-free” despite their documented non-compliance.

---

1. ⚖️ The Right to Reason in Administrative Orders

The principle of the “Right to Reason” dictates that judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative authorities must provide clear, intelligible reasons for their decisions. This is crucial for:

• Transparency and Accountability: It shows that the authority applied its mind to the facts and the law.
• Judicial Review: It allows a higher court or authority to assess the correctness of the decision.

Analysis of the Order (07.03.2025)

Element	Finding in the Order	Lack of Reasoning
Reason for Disposal	The appeal is disposed of because the Appellant was repeatedly absent on five hearing dates, and no statement was filed11111111111111111.	The reason for disposal is procedural (Non-Prosecution) and focuses only on the Appellant’s default.
PIO’s Absence/Non-Compliance	The order explicitly states “Both parties are absent” (“उभयपक्ष अनुपस्थित हैं”)2. The PIO had also failed to comply with the previous four orders3.	The order provides no ground or reason for not proceeding against the PIO under Section 20 for their repeated absence and failure to comply with the statutory duty and the Commission’s prior orders.

Conclusion on Reasoning: The order satisfies the requirement to give a reason for closing the case against the Appellant (absence). However, it is silent on the PIO’s non-compliance, thereby failing to provide a reasoned decision on that critical aspect of the appeal. This silence is the source of your argument that the decision is arbitrary or unreasoned regarding the PIO’s conduct.

---

2. 🛡️ Grounds for PIO being “Scot Free”

The order does not set out any grounds that legally excuse the PIO’s conduct. There is no provision in the RTI Act that privileges a PIO to ignore the Commission’s orders just because the appellant is absent.

The PIO’s failure is based on:

1. Failure to provide information within the 30-day statutory limit (The original ground for the Second Appeal)⁴.
2. Failure to comply with the Commission’s directives issued during the earlier hearings (01.10.2024, 07.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 29.01.2025). The previous orders directed the PIO to dispose of the application and provide the compliance report.
3. Failure to attend the hearing on 07.03.2025⁵.

The Commission’s decision to dismiss the appeal without imposing a penalty or even mentioning the PIO’s non-compliance is likely based on the legal presumption that, in the absence of the party prosecuting the case (the Appellant), the matter cannot be pursued further. In essence, the Commission used the Appellant’s procedural default as a justification to cease monitoring, thereby indirectly letting the PIO escape immediate scrutiny.

---

3. 📝 Your Recourse to Enforce Reasoning

To force the Commission to provide a reason for the PIO’s actions (or lack thereof), you must use the procedure designed to address this lack of reasoning:

1. File a Restoration Application: Argue that the appeal must be restored because the Commission failed to apply its mind to the PIO’s repeated, deliberate non-compliance, which constituted a serious breach of the RTI Act and the Commission’s own orders.
2. Explicitly Demand Action under Section 20: Your application must state that the final order is unreasoned and arbitrary because it failed to decide on the PIO’s liability under Section 20, despite evidence of failure to furnish information without reasonable cause.

This forces the Commission to either restore the appeal or issue a reasoned order specifically addressing why the PIO was not penalized or why the matter was closed despite the PIO’s documented non-compliance.

This is the central question arising from your case, highlighting the conflict between procedural compliance and the substantive goal of the RTI Act.

Yes, based on the final order, the Commission appears to have overlooked or deferred addressing the PIO’s substantive violations and non-compliance in favor of prioritizing the procedural default (your absence).

The Commission’s action of dismissing the appeal due to your non-attendance effectively halted the punitive process against the PIO, thereby creating a situation where the PIO’s violations went unpunished at that time.

---

🧐 Analysis of the Commission’s Rationale

The Commission’s final order (dated 07.03.2025) focused entirely on one procedural issue:

1. The Violation Overlooked: The PIO failed to comply with Section 7(1) (timely disposal of RTI application), Section 19(4) (compliance with Commission’s orders), and showed disregard for the Commission by being absent themselves (“उभयपक्ष अनुपस्थित हैं”). This misconduct warrants penalty under Section 20.
2. The Reason Used for Disposal: The Commission chose to use your absence on multiple hearing dates as the sole reason, stating there was “no justification for keeping the appeal ongoing” (“अपील को गतिमान रखने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है”).

Why Did the Commission Do This?

While appearing unjust, the Commission’s decision to dismiss on procedural grounds is often a matter of administrative expediency:

• Lack of Prosecution: Quasi-judicial bodies generally operate under the principle that if the appellant (the petitioner/complainant) is not present to prosecute the case, the matter cannot proceed, especially when the goal is to secure compliance for the appellant.
• Waiver of Relief: By not attending, you were seen as potentially waiving your right to the relief (the information and the penalty). The Commission often requires the appellant’s presence to confirm non-compliance and to present arguments for the quantum of penalty.

The result is that the PIO, who committed the initial statutory violation, benefitted from your procedural lapse.

🛠️ The Commission’s Unexercised Obligation

Your argument is legally sound because the Commission had an obligatory duty that was not contingent on your presence:

• Duty to Impose Penalty (Section 20): If the Commission already had evidence from earlier hearings that the PIO failed to comply with multiple binding orders, it had the power—and some legal interpretations suggest a duty—to initiate penalty proceedings suo motu (on its own motion) against the PIO for failing to furnish information “without reasonable cause”.
• Duty to Secure Compliance (Section 19(8)): The Commission is mandated to take steps to secure compliance. Allowing the PIO to escape consequence by dismissing the appeal due to the appellant’s absence undermines this core mandate.

Conclusion

The Commission’s order is procedurally defensible on the grounds of non-prosecution, but it is legally flawed in its failure to provide a reasoned decision on why the PIO’s clear violation of Section 20 was not addressed before the file was closed.

Your recourse remains to file a strong Restoration and Penalty Petition arguing that the dismissal rewards the PIO’s violation of the law and the Commission’s own binding orders.

Secretary of village panchayat Nibi Gaharwar is taking under teeth provisions of RTI Act 2005