Under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, which of the following can impose a penalty?
- (a)Only the Central Information Commission
- (b)Only a State Information Commission
- (c)Central Information Commission or a State Information Commission
- (d)High Court or Central Information Commission or State Information Commission
Correct — C, Central Information Commission or a State Information Commission. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 empowers the Information Commission — the CIC for central public authorities, or the relevant SIC for state public authorities — to penalise a Public Information Officer who, without reasonable cause, refused a request, delayed it beyond the deadline, denied it mala fide, gave incomplete/incorrect/misleading information, or destroyed requested information.
- (a)Only the Central Information Commission — Incomplete. It ignores that a State Information Commission has the identical Section 20 penalty power over PIOs of state public authorities.
- (b)Only a State Information Commission — Incomplete. It ignores that the Central Information Commission has the identical power over PIOs of central public authorities.
- (d)High Court or Central Information Commission or State Information Commission — Wrong — courts play no role in this administrative penalty; Section 20 vests the power only in the two Information Commissions.
Section 20 of the RTI Act is an accountability mechanism against errant PIOs, distinct from a citizen's right to appeal a refusal. It gives ONLY the Information Commissions — Central or State, whichever has jurisdiction over the public authority concerned — the power to fine a PIO for specified defaults, up to a statutory daily cap.
MPPSC/UPSC test whether the penalty power sits with the Commission (not a court), and whether BOTH the Central and State Commissions hold it within their own jurisdiction — not just one of them.
- Section 20(1) RTI Act empowers the CIC or the relevant SIC to penalise a PIO for unreasonable refusal/delay, mala fide denial, or false/incomplete information
- Penalty is ₹250 per day of delay, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000
- The Commission may also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under Section 20(2)
- Courts have no role in imposing this penalty — it is purely an Information Commission power
The Section 20 penalty power rests only with the Information Commission — Central or State, depending on jurisdiction — never with a court.
- Assuming only the CIC (not the SIC) has penalty power
- Believing courts/High Courts impose the Section 20 penalty
MPPSC/UPSC typically test 'who has power X under RTI' — expect the correct answer to name BOTH Commissions rather than just one.
No directly related past PYQ was found.
- practice — not a real PYQ
What is the maximum penalty an Information Commission can impose on a Public Information Officer under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005?
- (a)₹10,000
- (b)₹25,000
- (c)₹50,000
- (d)No upper limit
Answer(b) ₹25,000 — at the rate of ₹250 per day of delay.
- practice — not a real PYQ
An appeal against a Public Information Officer's decision under the RTI Act, 2005 first lies with:
- (a)the Information Commission directly
- (b)the First Appellate Authority (a senior officer in the same public authority)
- (c)the High Court
- (d)the State Government
Answer(b) the First Appellate Authority — only a second appeal goes to the Information Commission.