Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard In Penalty Proceedings Against SPIO U/S 20 RTI Act: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, are between the Information Commission and the concerned Public Information Officer, and the complainant has no vested right to participate unless permitted.
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has no right to be heard in penalty proceedings initiated against a State Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the Act, and that such proceedings are essentially between the Information Commission and the concerned officer.
The Court was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the State Information Commission dropping penalty proceedings initiated against the State Public Information Officer in connection with an RTI application.
A Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed: “… the appearance of the ‘appellant’ before the State Information Commission is optional. Even if the appellant opts not to be present, the State Information Commission has to dispose of the appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the RTI Act mandates that, before any penalty is imposed, the SPIO shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the Act is essentially a matter between the State Information Commission and the concerned SPIO. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the 3rd respondent was absolved of liability without furnishing her a copy of the explanation of the 3rd respondent and without affording an opportunity to rebut the same is untenable.
The petitioner has no right to be heard in the penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, unless permitted by the State Information Commission”, the Bench Added
Advocate Vimal Vijay appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Government Pleader Surya Binoy represented the State and Standing Counsel M. Ajay appeared for the State Information Commission.
Background
The petitioner had submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information relating to the exclusion of her application from consideration in a Revenue Adalat under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
It was contended by the petitioner that no reply was furnished within the statutory period, compelling her to file a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commission. The Commission, upon finding delay and alleged furnishing of misleading information, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act.
The petitioner contended that the Commission subsequently dropped the penalty proceedings without furnishing her a copy of the explanation submitted by the SPIO and without allowing her to rebut the same.
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the SPIO had submitted an explanation attributing the delay to administrative reasons, including election-related duties and staffing issues, and that the Commission, upon considering the explanation, found no wilful default warranting imposition of a penalty.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the scheme of Sections 19 and 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It noted that while Section 19 deals with appellate remedies and empowers the Commission to grant compensation to the complainant under Section 19(8)(b), Section 20 specifically governs the imposition of a penalty on the Public Information Officer.
The Court emphasised that under the first proviso to Section 20(1), the Act mandates that the SPIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed. However, no such statutory right is conferred upon the appellant to participate in penalty proceedings.
Interpreting the procedural framework, the Court referred to Rule 7 of the Kerala State Information Commission (Procedure for Appeal) Rules, 2006, and observed that the presence of the appellant in appeal proceedings is optional and not mandatory.
The Court held: “Even if the appellant opts not to be present, the State Information Commission has to dispose of the appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act.”
Distinguishing between compensation and penalty, the Court noted that while compensation is awarded to the complainant and may require adjudication of loss, penalty is imposed for statutory violations and is payable to the State exchequer.
The Court further held: “the penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the RTI Act is purely a matter between the… Commission and the… SPIO.”
Addressing the grievance of the petitioner, the Court held: “the petitioner’s contention that the 3rd respondent was absolved of liability without furnishing her a copy of the explanation… and without allowing rebutting the same is untenable.”
The Court also clarified that the opinion formed by the Commission at the stage of issuing a show cause notice is only prima facie, and that upon receiving a satisfactory explanation from the SPIO, the Commission is empowered to drop the penalty proceedings.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the State Information Commission was justified in dropping the penalty proceedings after accepting the explanation of the SPIO and that no interference was warranted in the absence of any perversity or illegality.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Raisa Eapen v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:21070)
