A Late RTI Reply from a Zila Parishad
On 3 February 2023 a retired schoolteacher of a village in Ludhiana district files an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the Public Information Officer of the Zila Parishad. The prescribed fee is paid and the application is acknowledged on the same day. It asks for two things: (a) copies of the tender documents, comparative statement and work order for a road contract worth ₹42 lakh, and (b) the medical fitness certificate of a named Junior Engineer. The PIO sends a single reply on 20 March 2023 refusing both items, citing 'third-party information' and 'official secrecy'. The applicant keeps the postal receipt dated 20 March. February 2023 had 28 days. She wants to challenge the refusal but is unsure whether the reply was late, which refusal grounds are actually available under the Act, and what a first appeal can achieve.
1. Calculate whether the reply was within the statutory period, and state the remedy available to the applicant together with its deadline.
Read the worked answer
Calculation: Section 7(1) gives the PIO 30 days from receipt of the application. Counting from 3 February 2023: 3 February to 28 February is 25 days, so day 30 falls on 5 March 2023 (a Sunday, but the Act does not extend the period for holidays; the reply was in any case far later). The reply of 20 March 2023 is therefore 15 days late.
Remedy: a first appeal under Section 19(1), filed with the officer immediately senior in rank to the PIO in the same public authority - not with the Information Commission.
Deadline: the appeal may be filed within 30 days from the date the reply period expired, or from the date the reply was actually received, whichever is later. Expiry date 5 March → 4 April 2023; receipt date 20 March → 19 April 2023. The later of the two governs, so the appeal is in time up to 19 April 2023.
Extra point worth arguing in the appeal: where a PIO fails to decide within the time limit, Section 7(6) requires the information to be given free of charge. Because a (late) decision was eventually issued, the applicant should ask the appellate authority to record the delay and to direct free supply rather than assume the benefit applies automatically.
2. Evaluate each of the two refusals. Which one is likely to stand and which is not, and why?
Read the worked answer
(a) Tender documents, comparative statement and work order - refusal is not sustainable as a blanket claim. Section 8(1)(d) protects commercial confidence, trade secrets and information whose disclosure would harm competitive position. But once a tender is concluded and public money has been spent, the rates quoted, the comparative statement and the work order are the record of how that money was spent. Section 8(2) requires a public authority to disclose information where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to protected interests. At most, genuinely secret elements of a live tender could be withheld; the concluded contract cannot be.
(b) Medical fitness certificate of a named Junior Engineer - refusal is likely to stand, but for the right reason. This is personal information under Section 8(1)(j), which is exempt unless disclosure is necessary in the larger public interest or the information relates to a public activity. A blanket medical certificate is personal; at most the fact of fitness for a particular posting could be disclosed if the post has specified medical standards.
Key correction: 'official secrecy' is not itself an RTI exemption. Section 22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act, so the PIO's second ground is legally empty and should be challenged even where the outcome on item (b) is right.
3. If the appeal succeeds and the delay is held to be without reasonable cause, what consequences does the Act provide for the PIO?
Read the worked answer
Penalty (Section 20): the Information Commission may impose a penalty of ₹250 for each day of delay, subject to a maximum of ₹25,000. The penalty is calculated from the date the reply became due until the date the information is actually supplied, and the PIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before it is imposed.
Disciplinary recommendation: the Commission may recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the applicable service rules, which is a separate consequence from the monetary penalty and can proceed even where the penalty amount is small.
Compensation: under Section 19(8)(b) the Commission may also require the public authority to compensate the applicant for any loss or detriment suffered.
Reasoning note: the penalty attaches to the individual officer, not to the office. This is why the applicant's postal receipt of 20 March matters: it fixes the end date of the delay and turns an unsupported complaint into an arithmetic claim the Commission can act on. Where the delay has a recorded and reasonable cause, no penalty follows - delay alone is not automatically penalised, but unexplained delay is.