First Appellate Authority Cannot Be Treated as “Deemed PIO” for Section 20 Penalty Absent Section 5(4)/(5) Assistance and Recorded Statutory Satisfaction
1. Introduction
In KAUSHLENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (WPC No. 1745 of 2022; decided on 06.07.2026),
the Chhattisgarh High Court examined the legality of a penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the State Information Commission
under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”).
The petitioner, Kaushlendra Kumar, had acted as the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in a first appeal arising out of an RTI request
concerning information about wild buffaloes and communications between the States of Assam and Chhattisgarh.
The Commission, while entertaining the second appeal, treated the petitioner as a deemed Public Information Officer (deemed PIO)
and imposed penalty, even though the designated PIO was not penalised.
The central issue before the High Court was narrow but important:
Can a First Appellate Authority be treated as a deemed PIO and penalised under Section 20(1) merely because he decided the first appeal,
without satisfying the statutory preconditions of Sections 5(4) and 5(5) and without recording satisfaction on Section 20(1) ingredients?
2. Summary of the Judgment
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Commission’s order dated 21.09.2021 imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner.
It also quashed all consequential proceedings (including recovery).
The Court held that:
-
Deemed PIO liability under Sections 5(4) and 5(5) arises only when the designated PIO seeks assistance of another officer;
absent such a request/entrustment, the deeming fiction cannot be invoked.
-
Mere functioning as FAA does not make the FAA a deemed PIO.
-
A Section 20(1) penalty being penal in nature requires strict fulfilment of statutory conditions and recording of reasons;
the impugned order recorded no finding on essential Section 20(1) ingredients (delay/refusal/malafide/incorrect information etc.).
-
Imposing the entire penalty on the FAA while exonerating the designated PIO, without a legally sustainable basis, evidenced misdirection and non-application of mind.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The High Court relied on three Supreme Court decisions to reinforce the nature of Section 20 proceedings and the duty to give reasons:
The High Court invoked this authority for the proposition that penalty under Section 20 is penal and therefore
cannot be imposed mechanically. The decision supports a strict approach: the Information Commission must
anchor penalty to statutory defaults and cannot expand liability beyond what the Act permits.
This case was used to underscore that RTI adjudication has defined statutory channels, and that the Commission’s actions must remain within
the framework of the Act. In the present case, the High Court noted the petitioner’s complaint that the Commission had
misdirected itself procedurally (including the grievance about proceeding under Section 18 instead of Section 19),
and, more importantly, that the Commission had not demonstrated how the petitioner met the statutory conditions to be treated as a deemed PIO.
This precedent was pivotal on reasoned orders. The High Court applied it to hold that where an explanation is offered in penalty proceedings,
the authority must record reasons for rejecting it. The impugned order was found deficient because it did not:
- identify which Section 20(1) default was committed by the petitioner,
- explain how the petitioner became a deemed PIO under Sections 5(4)/(5), or
- record satisfaction on the statutory ingredients before imposing a maximum penalty.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning proceeds in a clear statutory sequence:
(A) Deemed PIO requires a Section 5(4)/(5) foundation
The Court treated Sections 5(4) and 5(5) as the exclusive gateway for “deemed PIO” status.
It held that an officer becomes deemed PIO only where:
- the designated PIO seeks assistance from that officer (Section 5(4)), and
- the assisting officer is therefore treated as a PIO for contraventions in relation to such assistance (Section 5(5)).
On facts, the Commission’s order did not identify any request for assistance by the designated PIO, nor any entrustment of responsibility
to furnish information to the petitioner. Therefore, the deeming fiction could not be applied.
(B) FAA’s adjudicatory role is not equivalent to PIO’s disclosure duty
The petitioner’s role was adjudicatory: hearing the first appeal, issuing notices, providing opportunities, and passing an order.
The Court held that merely acting as FAA does not convert the FAA into the statutory “information provider” (PIO),
and the Commission cannot impose Section 20(1) penalty by collapsing the distinction between an appellate function and an information-disclosure function.
(C) Section 20(1) penalty needs recorded satisfaction of statutory ingredients
The Court identified the statutory ingredients typically relevant under Section 20(1)—such as refusal or delay in furnishing information,
malafide denial, knowingly giving incorrect/incomplete/misleading information, destroying information, or obstructing disclosure—
and found that the impugned order did not record satisfaction as to any of these elements.
(D) Internal inconsistency: PIO not penalised, FAA penalised
The Court found it significant that the designated PIO was not held liable while the entire penalty was imposed on the petitioner.
Without establishing deemed PIO status and without pinpointing a Section 20(1) default attributable to the petitioner,
the order became legally unsustainable.
(E) Natural justice and non-application of mind
The Court concluded that the Commission’s approach reflected misinterpretation of statutory provisions,
non-application of mind, and violation of principles of natural justice—primarily because
the order lacked the required findings and reasons that justify a penal consequence.
3.3 Impact
The decision is likely to have important operational consequences for RTI adjudication in Chhattisgarh:
-
Protection of the appellate structure: It prevents a routine practice of penalising First Appellate Authorities merely because
information was not supplied, thereby preserving the FAA’s appellate independence and role separation.
-
Stricter discipline in penalty orders: Information Commissions must now ensure penalty orders clearly document:
(i) why the noticee is a PIO/deemed PIO; (ii) which Section 20(1) default is attracted; and (iii) why the explanation is rejected.
-
Proper attribution of responsibility: Penalty risk is anchored to the statutory scheme—primarily the designated PIO,
and only to a “deemed PIO” where Section 5(4)/(5) conditions are demonstrably met.
-
Reduced arbitrariness in recoveries: Since recovery proceedings often follow penalty orders automatically,
this ruling strengthens judicial scrutiny where foundational findings are missing.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
-
Public Information Officer (PIO): The officer designated under the RTI Act to receive RTI applications and supply information.
-
First Appellate Authority (FAA): The departmental appellate authority who decides the first appeal against a PIO’s reply/inaction.
The FAA reviews the PIO’s handling; the FAA is not automatically responsible for collecting/supplying information like a PIO.
-
Deemed PIO (Sections 5(4) & 5(5)): If a PIO seeks assistance from another officer to deal with an RTI request,
that assisting officer is treated as a PIO for liability purposes—but only to the extent of that assistance and only if such assistance was actually sought.
-
Section 20(1) penalty: A personal monetary penalty imposed for specified RTI defaults. Because it is penal,
authorities must meet the statutory thresholds and provide reasons.
-
Reasoned order: An order that explains “why” the authority reached its conclusion—identifying facts, law, application, and reasons.
This is essential for fairness and meaningful judicial review.
5. Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling establishes a clear compliance rule for RTI penalty proceedings:
a First Appellate Authority cannot be penalised as a deemed PIO under Section 20(1) unless the statutory preconditions of Sections 5(4) and 5(5)
are demonstrably satisfied and the order records satisfaction on the specific Section 20(1) defaults with reasons.
By aligning penalty jurisprudence with Manohar v. State Of Maharashtra (2012) 13 SCC 14,
Chief Information Commissioner v. State Of Manipur (2011) 15 SCC 1, and
Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496,
the Court reinforces that RTI enforcement must remain strict, reasoned, and role-sensitive—ensuring accountability without sacrificing legality.