Court Holds PIO Primarily Responsible for RTI Information Delay. PIO's Duty to Ensure Timely Information Provision Despite Assistance from Other Officers

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a Public Information Officer (PIO), failed to provide requested information within the stipulated time because another officer (respondent no. 4) delayed in furnishing the necessary information. The petitioner contends that, according to Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the officer from whom assistance is sought should be treated as the PIO and be responsible for any contraventions. However, the court referenced a Delhi High Court decision which held that while assisting officers are also treated as PIOs, the primary responsibility to ensure timely information provision lies with the designated PIO. The petition was dismissed, holding the petitioner responsible for the delay.

Petitioner’s Contention

Petitioner, as PIO, sought assistance from respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 took 3 years to provide information. Petitioner argues respondent no. 4 should be responsible as PIO under RTI Act Sections 5(4) and 5(5).

Reference to Delhi High Court Judgment

J.P. Agrawal v. Union of India PIOs have crucial responsibilities, not merely acting as post offices. PIOs must handle requests from receipt to decision, ensuring timely provision of information. Failure by assisting officers should prompt remedial recommendations by the PIO. Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava PIOs cannot escape responsibility by blaming subordinates. PIOs must independently analyze and disclose or justify non-disclosure of information.

Court’s Interpretation

PIOs have primary responsibility under RTI Act to provide information. Section 5(4) strengthens PIO authority within the department. Assisting officers are also treated as PIOs but do not relieve the designated PIO of responsibility.

Case Decision

Petitioner failed to ensure timely assistance from respondent no. 4. Appellate authority penalized petitioner, not the assisting officer. Petition dismissed, upholding the penalty on the petitioner.