MP High Court Quashes Remarks Against Ex-State CIC’s Conduct For Delaying RTI Info, Says Decision Was ‘Bona Fide’
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside adverse observations made on the conduct of former State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Arvind Kumar Shukla in an order passed by a single judge bench and quashed the direction to recover a penalty of Rs. 40,000.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed that the order passed by the CIC with respect to information sought by an RTI applicant was passed in bona fide discharge of his duties. It said:
“We have perused the impugned order insofar as it relates to the conduct of the appellant and are satisfied that the orders passed by the appellant were in good faith and in bonafide discharge of the official duties. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 insofar as it make certain observations with regard to the discharge of duties by the appellant and direction to the department to recover the cost from the appellant, is set aside“.
The appellant, Arvind Kumar Shukla, who previously served as the CIC, challenged the order dated May 5 passed by the single judge bench in a writ petition filed by an RTI applicant. Shukla’s appeal was confined to certain remarks made against him with regard to his functioning as the CIC and the direction to recover the cost of Rs. 40,000 imposed on the concerned department, from him.
RTI Applicant, Neeraj Nigam had moved a writ petition before the single judge against rejection of his application seeking information by the former CIC.
Nigam had filed an RTI application on March 26, 2019. He claimed that the law required furnishing of information within 30 days but the Public Information Officer did not do so and failed in discharge of his duties. He thus claimed that information should be provided to him free of cost in terms of Section 7(6) RTI Act.
Meanwhile the department had argued that though RTI application was filed on March 26, 2019 however it was put up before the PIO only on March 27, 2019. PIO wrote to the applicant to deposit sum of Rs. 2,12,664 on April 18, 2019 which was dispatched on April 26, 2019. It was argued that period from date of date of dispatch of letter to the date by when payment is to be made must be excluded from the 30 day period. Hence order passed by CIC is correct.
However the the single judge held that information has to be provided within 30 days of receipt of request and not within 30 days of receipt of placing of request on the table of PIO. The court said that when the fee demand is dispatched after 30 days then that will not empower the authorities to not provide the information free of cost.
It had thereafter remarked, “CIC abdicated its statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government in not examining the facts of the case in minute details”.
The bench held that the delayed dispatch of a fee demand does not exclude the authority’s obligation under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the single judge had directed the department to provide the requested information free of cost within 15 days and imposed a cost of Rs. 40,000 on the State for forcing the petition into prolonged litigation for non application of mind on behalf of the former CIC. It also directed that the amount must be recovered from the delinquent officer. Against this Shukla moved the division bench in appeal.
Advocate Praveen Dubey appearing for Shukla, submitted before the division bench that the CIC’s orders were passed in good faith and as part of his official responsibilities. He relied on Section 21 of the Right to Information Act, which protects public servants from legal proceedings for actions performed in good faith under the Act. It was argued that, in light of this statutory protection, the court ought not to have issued adverse findings or recovery directions against Shukla.
The division bench noted that “prior to making the observation with regard to the conduct of the appellant and a direction to recover the cost from the appellant, no notice was issued to the appellant by the writ court“.
In light of the above findings, the court set aside the single judge’s order but only to the extent it contained observations on Shukla’s discharge of duties and direction to recover the penalty amount.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
For Appellant: Advocate Praveen Dubey
For Respondents: Advocates Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, Anubhav Jain and Vijayendra Singh Choudhary
Case Title: Arvind Kumar Shukla v Neeraj Nigam (WRIT APPEAL No. 1442 of 2025)
