RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Background

The Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions to ensure compliance with its provisions and to provide remedies for any detriment suffered by complainants due to non-compliance. Under Section 19(8) of the Act, the commissions can require public authorities to compensate the complainant for any loss or detriment suffered due to the denial or delay in providing information.

The principles established in various cases show that compensation under the RTI Act is meant to address the actual harm or inconvenience caused by non-disclosure. Courts have upheld the CIC's authority to award compensation, emphasizing that it should be commensurate with the losses experienced by the complainant. Compensation serves not just as a punitive measure but as a remedial tool to rectify the adverse effects of non-compliance and to ensure that the public authority adheres to the principles of transparency and accountability.

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court upheld the compensation awarded to a RTI applicant. Below is the case analysis in South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Central Information Commission [W.P.(C) 4622/2019].

Overview

In the case of W.P.(C) 4622/2019, decided by the High Court of Delhi on July 24, 2024, the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) challenged the Central Information Commission's (CIC) award of compensation under Section 19(8) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The central issue revolved around the alleged inadequacy of the information provided by the SDMC in response to an RTI application and the consequent award of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the applicant, Mr. Om Prakash Khorwal.

Facts of the Case

Mr. Om Prakash Khorwal, the respondent, had filed an RTI application on January 10, 2017, seeking information regarding the parking area around the SCOPE Complex. The application highlighted concerns about the shift in parking fees from free to a charged system post-2012, when the parking area was leased to a contractor by SDMC.

The SDMC's response on March 29, 2017, was deemed incomplete by Mr. Khorwal, leading him to appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on May 23, 2017. Despite the FAA's direction for comprehensive disclosure, the SDMC's non-compliance resulted in the matter escalating to the CIC.

The CIC, upon review, issued a show-cause notice to SDMC regarding the award of compensation under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act. The CIC ultimately decided to award Rs. 50,000 to Mr. Khorwal, reasoning that the SDMC's failure to provide adequate information caused financial detriment to the applicant and other affected employees.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The SDMC contested the CIC's decision on several grounds:

1. Jurisdiction and Arbitrary Award: SDMC argued that the CIC’s order was beyond its jurisdiction and arbitrary. It claimed that the compensation was awarded without a thorough examination of whether the information was willfully withheld or if it had been adequately provided.
2. Availability of Information: SDMC contended that the information requested by Mr. Khorwal regarding the allotment letter from the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) was not available with the department. Therefore, there was no deliberate denial of information.
3. Legitimacy of the Parking Allotment: SDMC referred to a note from the Lt. Governor of Delhi, suggesting that the allocation of parking spaces to a contractor was legitimate and in line with policy decisions. They argued that the CIC’s compensation award was disproportionate and exceeded the statutory limits set by the RTI Act.

Respondent’s Contentions

Mr. Khorwal and his counsel defended the CIC's decision, arguing:

1. Legitimacy of CIC’s Compensation Authority: The respondents asserted that the CIC’s authority to award compensation under Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act was independent of the penalty provisions under Section 20 of the Act. The compensation was a remedial measure to address the harm caused by the lack of information.
2. Compensatory Nature: The compensation of Rs. 50,000 was deemed appropriate considering the financial detriment caused by the SDMC's non-disclosure. The funds were directed to be utilized for public benefits rather than personal gain, emphasizing the CIC's commitment to addressing broader public concerns.
3. Evasive Responses: The respondents highlighted that SDMC’s responses were evasive and lacked transparency, particularly regarding the allotment of parking space. The failure to provide clear and complete information obstructed potential legal recourse for affected employees.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Delhi High Court, in reviewing the petition, addressed several key aspects:

1. Jurisdiction of CIC: The Court affirmed the CIC’s authority under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act to award compensation. This provision empowers the CIC to direct compensation for any loss or detriment suffered due to non-compliance with the RTI Act. The Court emphasized that compensation aims to redress losses directly resulting from the denial or delay of information.
2. Connection to Denial of Information: The Court found that the SDMC’s responses were insufficient and evasive, particularly concerning the critical information about the parking allotment. The lack of clear responses led to unnecessary financial burden and inconvenience for Mr. Khorwal and other affected parties.
3. Compensation Determination: The Court noted that while the RTI Act does not prescribe a maximum amount for compensation, it must be proportionate to the loss suffered. The Rs. 50,000 award was justified as it addressed the broader public impact and financial detriment caused by the SDMC’s non-compliance.
4. Legitimacy of SDMC’s Actions: The Court considered SDMC’s claims regarding the legitimacy of the parking allotment but found that these did not negate the failure to provide transparent information in response to the RTI application. The CIC’s focus on the public detriment and the misuse of authority was upheld.

Decision and impact

The Delhi High Court upheld the CIC’s decision to award Rs. 50,000 as compensation, reinforcing the CIC’s role in ensuring transparency and accountability under the RTI Act. The case highlights the importance of timely and complete disclosure by public authorities and the judicial support for compensatory measures to address the impacts of non-compliance

It would be produent to have a look at the section which deals with Compensation Section under the RTI Act.

Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—

(a) require the public authority to take such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act;

            (i) ….. (vi)…

(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; and

(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;

(d) …

Other relevant Cases:

1. CWP No. 9739 of 2016 - High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 11 Jan 2017
In Pawan Kumar Gupta vs The Central Information Commission & Anr., the court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to compensation under Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act. The petitioner, an advocate seeking empanelment with a bank, was denied information about the empanelment process. The court found that there was no legal right to compensation for loss or detriment in this case as the information was appropriately provided, and the petitioner had no vested right to empanelment.

2. CWP No. 17094 of 2012 - High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 26 Oct 2016
In Dr. Anil Pannikker vs Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Ors., the court addressed issues of procedural fairness. The court found that the petitioner bank was not given adequate time to prepare for a hearing. The appeal was remanded to the respondent-Commission to be decided afresh, emphasizing the need for fair opportunity to participate in the process rather than directly awarding compensation.

3. W.P. 27355 (W) of 2012 - High Court of West Bengal, 31 Aug 2016
In Dr. Nazrul Islam Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., the court upheld the award of compensation for gross negligence by the Home Department. The Commission's decision to grant Rs. 50,000 as compensation and additional costs of Rs. 20,000 was affirmed. The court noted that the state’s failure to comply with the RTI Act and its negligent attitude warranted compensation for the petitioner’s harassment and detriment.

4. Writ Petition No. 6961 of 2012 - High Court of Bombay, 27 Feb 2015
In Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni vs The State of Maharashtra, the court ordered a criminal investigation into missing records and directed compensation of Rs. 15,000 to the petitioner. The ruling emphasized the need for accountability and swift investigation into matters of missing records as well as awarding compensation for the distress caused.

5. LPA 195/2011 - High Court of Delhi, 09 Apr 2013
In Union of India Vs. P.K. Srivastava, the court clarified that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act can only be awarded by the Commission while deciding an appeal. It cannot be awarded when dealing with complaints, where only penalties under Section 20 can be imposed.

6. N. B. Jeejeebhoy vs. Assistant Collector [1965 AIR 1096]

Although this case is not directly under the RTI Act, it is frequently cited to illustrate the principle of compensation. The Supreme Court held that compensation should be equivalent to the loss suffered by the aggrieved party. This principle has been adopted in RTI cases to guide the determination of compensation under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act. This case provided a foundational understanding of compensation principles that have been applied in RTI cases, emphasizing that compensation should correspond to the actual loss or detriment suffered.

Summary

Compensation under the RTI Act is awarded in cases of significant procedural failings, undue delay, or gross negligence by public authorities. Courts have emphasized that compensation is not a remedy for all grievances but is applicable where the petitioner has suffered tangible loss or detriment due to non-compliance with the Act.