COURT JUDGEMENTS ON PENATY UNDER RTI

PENALTY UNDER RTI --COURT CASES

WP (C) No.3845/2007

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on: 28.04.2009

MUJIBUR REHMAN versus Central Information Commission

12. The Court while considering a complaint about the Tribunal infracting its bounds has to be alive to the fact that primary discretion in such cases is with the statutory Tribunal. At the same time, once it is established that the Tribunal, for no apparent reason, either exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it, the High Court would be justified in interfering with its orders.

14. As far as the sixth respondent's contention regarding possible prejudice in his departmental enquiry is concerned, this Court feels that an order under Section 20 would not in any manner come in the way of his defenses, lawfully available to him in such proceedings. The sixth respondent is not denying the findings recorded in the order dated 29.5.2006; in fact he has not even challenged it. The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.

15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this case, the penalty amount (on account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is hereby directed to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit the amount, with the Commission.

16. In the circumstances of the case, the third respondent shall bear the cost of the proceedings quantified at Rs.50,000/- be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today.[emphasis added]_______________________________________________________

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 16.04.2009

 W.P. (C) 6661/2008

U.O.I ..... Petitioner versus

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION &ORS

[Compensation increased from Rs.5000/- to Rs.55000/- by HC]

_____________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.14161 of 2009

Date of Decision: 10.09.2009

Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College and another

Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and others

As per provisions of the Act, Public Information Officer is supposed to supply correct information that too, in a time bound manner. Once a finding has come that he has not acted in the manner prescribed under the Act, imposition of penalty is perfectly justified.

________________________________________________________________

Writ No. 2272/2007 Ravindranath K Mohite v/s state of Maharashtra

 March 2008 of High Court of Bombay [bench Justice J N Patel and Justice Nishita Mhatre ]- Directorate of Medical Education and Research

– Why penalty not imposed by SIC.

_____________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 588 of 2010 Date of decision January 14, 2010

Khushal Singh V/s Central Information Commission

3. The Right to Information Act ushers in a new era of transparency in the functioning of public offices and the duties of public authorities. We ought to be heading for a situation that many of the information regarding public offices ought not to be required to be demanded to be secured. On the other hand, the information must be forthcoming on their own. Every public institution ought to be running its affairs with a degree of transparency that would instantly evoke public confidence. In this case, there were not merely instances where the delay had been caused that could normally be expected of a public institution to give the  information. On the other hand, the delay had been caused by a deliberate unwillingness to give the information of what they ought to have had. Section 20 of the Act alone provides a reckoning that nothing except  imposition of the penalty would be the consequence for non performance  or delayed performance. The Central Information Commission has passed the order after due consideration of the relevant status and its own conviction that there was an attempt at defiance and delay the process of  securing information process of that the Act makes possible. We have to charter a whole new path of understanding a new paradigm that has been set through this Act. The bureaucratic mindset of lethargy must go; Inertia must give place to quick response; defiance shall be tellingly punished. The penalty enforced is justified and within the confines of what is permissible under Section 20. [emphasis added]

__________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. NO. 1924 OF 2008, Date of Decision: 8.2.2008

Ramesh Sharma and another v/s

The State Information Commission, Haryana and others

___________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 7372/2007 & CM APPL 14017/2007

Decision on: 5th August, 2010
M.K.TYAGI Versus K.L. AHUJA & ANR. .....

{Shri K.L. Ahuja is CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission}

Penalty Rs.22500/- plus compensation Rs.30000/- ordered to be paid to Shri Tyagi, as whiste blower
______________________________________________________________