Introduction

Amit Anand v. Bihar Information Commission (Patna High Court, 21 April 2025) arises from a long‐pending dispute over delayed information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) and the petitioner’s demand for compensation under Section 19(8)(b). The petitioner, Amit Anand, originally sought a migration certificate from the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB) to pursue legal studies. When the BSEB failed to provide timely information in response to his RTI application, he escalated his grievance to the State Information Commission (SIC). Despite various orders, including provision of the migration certificate in May 2022, the petitioner also claimed monetary compensation for delay, pointing to prior awards granted to others in a consolidated order dated 2 August 2019 (Suit No. A-4877/2018).

Key parties:

• Petitioner: Amit Anand, law‐student candidate
• Respondents: Bihar Information Commission (State Chief and other Commissioners) and BSEB (Chairman & Secretary)

Core issues:

1. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation under Section 19(8)(b) RTI Act.
2. What threshold must be met to claim such compensation.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma dismissed the writ petition. The Court held:

• The petitioner never made a specific claim for compensation before the SIC, nor challenged the SIC’s common order disposing his appeal without awarding compensation.
• Under Section 19(8)(b) RTI Act, compensation is discretionary and conditional upon the applicant demonstrating actual loss or detriment resulting from delayed/non‐provision of information.
• General parity with other appellants does not entitle one to compensation; each applicant must meet the statutory threshold.
• Absence of any material demonstrating loss/detriment and failure to challenge the SIC’s order bars relief.

Result: Writ petition dismissed; no interference with SIC’s order; no compensation awarded.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• NTPC v. Mohammad Samad Khan, ILR(2010)6 DEL 55 (Delhi High Court)—held that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) requires proof of quantifiable loss or detriment.
• DDA v. Subhas Chandar, 2009 SCC Online DEL 1280—similar approach on requiring demonstration of loss, not mere delay.
• Bihar School Examination Board v. State Information Commission, CWJC 1172/2021 (Patna HC)—coordinate bench followed NTPC and DDA principles; emphasized application‐specific evidence of harm.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be broken down into three pillars:

1. Statutory Prerequisite: Section 19(8)(b) empowers SIC to “direct payment of compensation” for “any loss or detriment suffered” due to non‐compliance. Payment is not automatic; it demands a request by the applicant and evidence of harm.
2. Requirement to Apply: The petitioner never filed a formal application for compensation before the SIC. The Court treated this omission as fatal: without an antecedent claim, SIC had no occasion to decide compensation, and petitioner cannot collaterally invoke it in a writ petition.
3. Demonstrable Loss: In prior awards (e.g., Payal Kumari and others), the SIC had specific material—such as non‐receipt of answer sheets—quantifying prejudice. Amit Anand produced no receipts, correspondence showing financial/educational loss from delay in obtaining his migration certificate.

Impact

This decision clarifies and cements procedural and substantive thresholds for RTI compensation claims:

• Applicants must actively request compensation before the SIC when they file a second appeal.
• They must adduce evidence—however approximate—of actual prejudice or detriment (e.g., monetary loss, missed admissions, delay costs).
• Uniform orders awarding compensation in group appeals do not create an automatic entitlement for others without similar evidence.
• It reduces frivolous compensation claims and aligns Patna High Court’s approach with well-established Delhi High Court precedents, promoting consistency nationwide.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• RTI Act Hierarchy of Remedies:
  1. First, request information from the Public Information Officer (PIO).
  2. If refused/delayed, file a first appeal before the Appellate Authority within the same department.
  3. If still unsatisfied, file a second appeal before the State Information Commission under Section 19(3).
• Section 19(8)(b) RTI Act: Empowers the SIC to impose a penalty on the PIO and to direct payment of “compensation to the appellant for any loss or detriment suffered.” This is separate from the PIO’s personal fine.
• Speaking Order: A judicial or quasi‐judicial order that sets out findings and reasons. The BSEB was directed in CWJC 16122/2021 to issue a “speaking order” on Amit Anand’s migration certificate grievance.
• Group vs. Individual Claims: Where SIC hears multiple second appeals together, it may award compensation to some whose circumstances are documented—but such awards do not bind absent appellants with different fact patterns.

Conclusion

Amit Anand v. Bihar Information Commission reinforces that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) RTI Act is neither automatic nor based on parity. An applicant must:

1. Specifically seek compensation in the second appeal to the SIC,
2. Submit evidence of actual loss or detriment, and
3. If aggrieved by the SIC’s refusal, challenge that order properly.