CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR, GAYA

School of Law & Governance

PROJECT WORK

ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF PIO/APIOs IN RTI ACT

Submitted to:
Submitted by: DR. POONAM KUMARI
ANESH KUMAR Assistant Professor of Law,
Xth Semester (2019-24) School of Law & Governance,
Central University of South Bihar, Gaya
B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
E. No.: CUSB1913125021
Course Title- Right to Information Law
Section: A
Course Code- BALAW10001E04

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

There is always a sense of gratitude one expresses to the other for their helpful and needy
service they render during all phases of life. I wish to express my deep gratitude towards
all of them. My deepest thanks to our Professor Dr. Poonam Kumari for guiding and
helping at every stage during the completion of this project with attention and care.

I would like to thank my parents for the emotional support. I would also like to thank my
friends, institution and every single person who are related with this project in any way
and without whom this would have been a distant reality.

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapters Topic Page No.

I Introduction 3

II Duties of Public Information Officer 4

III Assistant Public Information Officer 5

IV Time limit for disposal of request 8

V Refusal of request by PIO 9

VI CASE STUDIES 10

VII Penalty imposed on PIO 12

VIII Conclusion & Bibliography 14

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The Public Information Officer of a public authority plays a pivotal role in making the right of
citizens to information a reality. PIOs are officers designated by the public authorities in all
administrative units or offices under it to provide information to the citizens requesting for
information under the Act. The Act casts specific duties on him and makes him liable for
penalty in case of default. Any officer, whose assistance has been sought by the PIO for the
proper discharge of his or her duties, shall render all assistance and for the purpose of
contraventions of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a PIO.

The role of a Public Information Officer (PIO) is crucial in the implementation of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act in India. A PIO is a designated officer within a government department
or public authority who is responsible for receiving and responding to RTI applications.

1. Receiving RTI applications: The PIO receives RTI applications submitted by

individuals seeking information from the respective government department or public
authority.

2. Processing RTI applications: The PIO examines each application to determine if it

meets the requirements specified under the RTI Act. This includes verifying the
applicant's eligibility, the clarity of the information requested, and the appropriate
department or authority responsible for providing the information.

3. Facilitating information disclosure: If the requested information falls within the scope
of the RTI Act and is not subject to any exemptions, the PIO is responsible for collecting
the necessary information from the relevant sources within the department and
preparing a response.

4. Providing timely response: The PIO is obligated to respond to the RTI application
within a specified timeframe, usually 30 days from the date of receiving the application.
If additional time is required due to the nature or volume of the requested information,
the PIO must communicate the same to the applicant within the initial 30-day period.

5. Providing reasons for denial (if applicable): In cases where the requested information
is denied or certain portions are withheld, the PIO must provide valid reasons for such
denial, citing the specific sections of the RTI Act that justify the exemption1.

1
Sudhir Naib, “The Right to Information Act 2005: A Handbook” (online edn, Oxford Academic, Delhi, 2012)

4|Page
 6. Maintaining records: The PIO maintains records of all RTI applications received,
responses provided, and any subsequent appeals or complaints related to the
applications. These records are important for transparency, accountability, and future
reference.

Designation of PIOs and APIOs

Section 5 (1) of the Act requires a Public Authority to designate as many officers as Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, in all
administrative units and offices under it as may be necessary to provide information to persons
requesting for the same. They were to be designated within 100 days of the enactment of the
Act.

Similarly, Central or State Assistant Public Information Officers are to be designated at each
sub-divisional level or other sub-district level to receive applications or appeals and forward
them on to the concerned Public Information Officers, Designated Appellate officers and the
Information Commission. This is to ensure that the public can apply for information in their
own local areas without the need for traveling long distances to the offices of the Public
Information Officers.

DUTIES OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

The Act prescribes the obligations of a Public Information Officer (PIO), Assistant Public
Information Officer (APIO) and other officers as follows:

Deal with requests seeking information- Every Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from persons seeking
information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.

Assistance of other officer- The Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it
necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties. The officer whose assistance has been
sought shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of
any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central
Public Information Officer or State Public Information Office.

5|Page
Request made to Public Information Officer for obtaining information

A person, who wants to obtain any information under this Act, has to make a request to the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of
the concerned public authority; the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State
Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the
information sought by him in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the
official language of the area in which the application is being made2.

Render assistance in making application

If the request for obtaining information cannot be made in writing, the Public Information
Officer shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce
the same in writing.

ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

Under section 5(2), the APIO has to receive applications for information or appeals under the
Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer or Appellate Officer or the Central Information Commission or the
State Information Commission, as the case may be.

When an application for information or appeal is given to an Assistant Public Information

Officer, a period of five days shall be added in computing the period for response specified
under sub-section (1) of section 7.

DUTY TO DISPOSE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Section 7 of the Act imposes duty on PIO that request for information shall be disposed by the
Public Information Officer within thirty days of receipt in general cases and where the
information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within
forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.

A PIO has two options when he receives a request for obtaining information. He can either
provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for
any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9.

2
Right to Information Act,2005 (Act 22 of 2005), s.6(1)

6|Page
Intimation Regarding deposit of further fee

If the PIO fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under
sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, shall be deemed to have refused the request.

In case payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information is
required, the PIO shall send an intimation to the person making the request giving

(a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as
determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in
accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that
fees, and the period intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and
payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty
days referred to in that sub-section;
(b) information concerning his or her right with respect to review the decision as to the
amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the
appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms3.

Provide assistance to sensorily disabled person

Where access to the record or a part thereof is required to be provided under this Act and the
person to whom access is to be provided is sensorily disabled, the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall provide assistance to
enable access to the information, including providing such assistance as may be appropriate for
the inspection.

TIME LIMITS FOR DISPOSAL OF REQUESTS BY PIO

Section 7 (1) requires that the information requested by an applicant to a PIO shall be furnished
“as expeditiously as possible”. The time limits prescribed under the Act for disposal of requests
for information are as follows:

30 days: On receipt of a request for information, the PIO has either to provide information on
payment of such fees as prescribed or reject the request with reasons for the same. 48 hours: If

3
Right to Information Act,2005 (Act 22 of 2005), s.7(3).

7|Page
the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same has to be provided
immediately, in any case, within 48 hours.

35 days:5 more days to be added to the above time limits if the application is submitted to the
Assistant Public Information Officer.

40 days: Where third party is involved (If the PIO intends to disclose any information which
relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by it, the
PIO has to give a written notice to such third party within 5 days from the receipt of request
inviting such third party to make a submission).

45 days: Information pertaining to allegations of human right violations from scheduled

security and intelligence agencies.

REFUSAL OF REQUEST BY PIO

A PIO can reject a request seeking information and shall communicate to the person making
the request :

(i) the reasons for such rejection;

(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.

In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta (erstwhile cpio) Union Bank of India & ors v. Central
Information Commission & anr4, the Delhi High Court was dealing with a petition filed by
two CPIOs working with the Union Bank of India challenging an order dated 14.12.2020
passed by the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission (CIC). According
to the said order, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 each was imposed on the petitioners for providing an
incomplete response to an RTI application.

Initially, the petitioners took the stand of exemption of information under sec. 8(1)(d) of the
Act as being of "commercial confidence for the Bank". However, the stand was later changed
after the CIC sent them show cause notice wherein the petitioners claimed that the required
documents were not traceable.

4
AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 688

8|Page
The Court held that there was an intention to withhold certain important documents or
information, leading to the finding of mala fides and unreasonable conduct. The Court while
considering the fact that both the officers were retired from the service of the Bank, reduced
the penalty to Rs. 5,000 each to be payable within 6 weeks.

The Court held that Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or PIOs cannot withhold
information without reasonable cause and that such officers cannot function merely as "post
offices" while dealing with information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Also,
certain principles were enumerated by the High Court to be followed by PIO.

1. CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause.

2. A PIO/CPIO cannot be held responsible if they have genuinely rejected the information
sought on valid grounds permissible under the Act. Mere difference of opinion on the
part of CIC cannot lead to an imposition of penalty under section 20 of the RTI Act.
3. Duty of compliance lies upon the PIO/CPIO. The exercise of power by the PIO/CPIO
has to be with objectivity and seriousness the PIO/CPIO cannot be casual in their
approach.
4. PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as "post offices" but instead are responsible to
ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided.
5. Government departments ought not to be permitted to evade disclosure of information.
Diligence has to be exercised by the said departments, by conducting a thorough search
and enquiry, before concluding that the information is not available or traceable.
6. A PIO/CPIO has to apply their mind, analyze the material, and then direct disclosure or
give reasons for non-disclosure. The PIO cannot rely upon subordinate officers.

Grounds for rejection to access:

The Public Information Officer can reject an application seeking information on any of the
grounds mentioned in Section 8. In addition to that he may reject a request for information
where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright
subsisting in a person other than the State.

Informing the applicant regarding access to part of the record

Section 10 provides that where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground
that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, access may be provided to
that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure

9|Page
under the Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt
information5.

The PIO shall give a notice to the applicant informing him that

(a) that only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing
information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;
(b) the reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact,
referring to the material on which those findings were based;
(c) the name and designation of the person giving the decision
(d) the details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant
is required to deposit; and
(e) his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part
of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including
the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the
Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may
be, time limit, process and any other form of access.

Disclosure of third party information by PIO

If the PIO intends to disclose any third party information which has been treated as confidential
by the third party, the PIO shall within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written
notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the PIO intends to disclose the
information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing
or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the
third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information.

APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF PIO

Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the PIO, may within
thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal
to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority. The onus to prove that a denial
of a request was justified lies on the PIO who denied the request.

5
Labour Commissionerate, West Bengal, Role of Public Information Officers (2021)

10 | P a g e
Appeal against disclosure of third party information- The third party can prefer an appeal
against an order made by PIO under section 11 to disclose third party information within thirty
days from the date of the order.

An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of
the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days
from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Public Information Officer Cannot Challenge Appellate Authority's Order Directing It

To Disclose Information:

In the case of Central Public Information Officer/Deputy Director General, Doordarshan

Kendra and Central Information Commission & Anr6, The Karnataka High Court has made
it clear that under the Right to Information Act, a Public information Officer has no authority
to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the Appellate Authority, directing him to furnish
information to an applicant under the Act.

The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Dr Mahesh Joshi, Central
Public Information Officer/Deputy Director General, Doordarshan Kendra. He had approached
the court, challenging the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority, directing the CPIO
to provide the applicant S Bhajantri, the desired information along with photocopies of the
relevant documents within thirty days.

The PIO didn’t furnish the information to the applicant. Instead, he presented the writ petition
challenging the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority directing him to furnish the
information.

A single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda observed that There is no provision under
the Act which enables any of the parties, let alone a Public Information Officer, to prefer an
appeal against the order to the Second Appellate Authority.

Firstly, the bench noted that a Public Information Officer is designated with the sole purpose
of ensuring that the information sought for by an applicant is furnished. It was contended by
the PIO that the information was withheld because the applicant was utilising RTI Act for the
purpose of collecting information with the objective of blackmailing certain people and

6
2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 165

11 | P a g e
therefore, he could not be provided with this information. The court held that this reason to
deny information does not come within the grounds mentioned in Section 8 and 9.

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000, payable by the appellant
i.e. PIO, within a period of one month from the date of the order.

IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AGAINST PIO

If the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, may on a

complaint or appeal impose penalty on the PIO:

(a) If the PIO has without any reasonable cause refused to receive an application
(b) has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section
7
(c) malafidely denied the request for information
(d) knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in
furnishing the information

then the central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case
may be shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is
received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not
exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.

The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the PIO. The
Information Commission can also recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, if it is of the opinion that that the
PIO has failed to provide the information without any reasonable cause.

In the case of B.B. Dash v Central information Commission7, the Delhi High Court upheld an
order by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the Chief
Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Indian Council for Agricultural Research(ICAR) for not
providing information sought by an applicant.

In this case, An RTI applicant had sought information on various expenses incurred by the
ICAR in procuring diagnostic kits for Foot and Mouth disease amongst other things. ICAR’s

7
W.P.(C) 624/2017

12 | P a g e
response in the matter was dissatisfactory as most of the questions were answered as- “It is an
institute matter”.

After looking at the facts, the CIC held that the nature of the CPIO’s replies to various queries
shows that these were “meant to circumvent the queries raised by the Complainant in her
application.” This was deemed as a pointer to wilful denial of information. Therefore, the
maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on Dr. B. B. Dash, CPIO Head of the Project
Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease under Section 20 (1) Of the RTI Act.

Dismissing CPIO’s petition, the single bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva finally held that CIC
had not “erred” in his order. He observed- “In response to an application, seeking information
under the RTI Act, the CPIO is to provide the information sought and in case the information
is not liable to be provided on account of it being exempt, give sufficient reasons for denying
the supply of information. Needless to state that the denial of information can only be in terms
of the Act.”

In the case of Ambadi Madhav v. The karnataka Information Commission8, The Karnataka
HIgh Court quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission directing a
Deputy Conservator of Forests (deputed as the Public Information officer) to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- for delay in furnishing information sought under the Right to Information Act
(RTI).

A single judge bench of Justice C M Poonacha while allowing the petition filed by Ambadi
Madhav said, “Even if there has been some delay in furnishing the information, it is clear from
a perusal of the material available on record that the reasons have been afforded by the
Petitioner for delay and the said reasons are genuine and bona fide.”

It was held that Public Information Officer can't Be penalised for delay in furnishing
Information if genuine and bonafide reasons are given.

CONCLUSION

The PIO and APIO has a significant role in upholding the objectives and in fulfilling the needs
for which RTI Act was enacted. The sole purpose of PIO is to furnish information which is
requested from them. In doing so, they make the citizens informed. The right to information

8
2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

13 | P a g e
can be strengthened only if the PIO are cooperative in furnishing the information requested
from them.

The PIO and APIO have certain duties and responsibilities to perform and the statute also
impose penalty on them if they fail to perform those obligations. The circumstances in which
penalty is imposed includes failure to give information within stipulated time, malafidely
denied the request for information, knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroyed information.

Apart from furnishing information requested from them, PIOs are required to render assistance
to applicants who seek information. The Public Information Officer plays a pivotal role in the
implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The compliance with various provisions
of the Act requires a certain level of preparedness on part of the PIO. He should have complete
knowledge of and experience in office procedures. He needs to know the structure, functions
and delegation of powers within the organization. He should be well-versed with the
organization chart, the levels of disposal of cases, appeals etc. He should be fully conversant
with all the provisions of the Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK

Sudhir Naib, “The Right to Information Act 2005: A Handbook” (online edn, Oxford
Academic, Delhi, 2012)

ARTICLE

Varsha Khanwalker, “The Right to Information Act in india: Its Connotations and
Implementation” 72 The Indian Journal of Political Science 388(2011)

REPORTS

Labour Commissionerate, West Bengal, Role of Public Information Officers (2021)

WEBSITES

www.livelaw.com

www.manupatra.com

www.rti.gov.in

14 | P a g e