Date of decision:
03.12.2020
Coram/author:
Information Commissioner Amita Pandove
Parties to the case:
Appellant: Chandrakant Mohanlal Bhansali
Respondent: Department of Posts
Subject
The case deals with rejection of an RTI application by a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) due to harm to important secrets.
Issue
Can a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) reject an RTI citing harm to important secrets?
Overview
- The Appellant, Mr. Bhansali, filed an RTI application to get the details of the land which he purchased in a public auction, conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Mumbai. It was stated that the parts of the land were reserved for several entities, one of which was the post office, which came under the Department of Posts (Respondent), but the reservation had expired. So, the Appellant filed the application to know the details of this expiry of reservation.
- His application was rejected and information was denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), on the grounds under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, that it would lead to disclosure of confidential information.
- The Appellant then filed his first appeal before the Central Information Commission, but the appeal was rejected and the authority concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
- He then filed his second appeal, in which a detailed discussion was undertaken regarding public interest, important information, fiduciary relations.
- The Appellant here argued that the rejection of his RTI application by the CPIO was done with a malafide intention and that the information he was seeking had a major public interest behind it.
- The Respondent contended that the information which the Appellant wished to seek contained some commercial secrets, as held by the Department of Posts and if they were to come out in open, it would lead to interference in the land acquisition process which the Respondent was undertaking. It also alleged that the Appellant had to public interest behind his contentions and that he was trying to fulfil his individual interests.
Legal Provisions
- Section 8(1) (d) of the Right To Information Act, 2005: It deals with the situation wherein the concerned information authorities shall not be obligated to provide information, if such information relates to trade secrets or intellectual property, which, if disclosed, may harm the interests of the entity. But if the authority feels that disclosure of such information is necessary in public interest, it can be done.
- Section 8(1) (e) of the Right To Information Act, 2005: It deals with the situation wherein, if an entity is in a fiduciary relation (where one has to act in the benefit of the other), they shall not be obligated to disclose the information pertaining to such relation. But in case of compelling public interest, they can make the disclosure.
- Section 8(1)(j) of the Right To Information Act, 2005: It deals with the situation wherein it is not mandatory to give any information which is not related to any public activity and the disclosure of which would only cause violation of the privacy of the opposite party.
Judgement of the Central Information Commission
The Information Commissioner considered three main points to answer that whether the rejection of the application made by the CPIO under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act was justified or not.
i. Whether the information being sought could cause a disadvantage to the Respondent authority: for this purpose, the case of Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta was considered, in which it was held that if the information being sought is of such a nature which can harm the competitive interests of the entity, such information may not be disclosed. In the present case, the Respondent stated that the information contained some commercial correspondences, which, if disclosed, could lead to a series of cases against the Respondent authority, hampering the land acquisition being undertaken by them. It was held that the disclosure of the information would actually cause a disadvantage to the Respondent.
ii. Whether there was an existence of a fiduciary relation in the present case? For this, the Court referred to Reserve Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors., in which the Supreme Court referred to lexicons to understand the meaning of fiduciary relations. According to them, a fiduciary relation is a relation in which one party has a duty to take care of the interests of the other party. Applying the meaning in the current case, it was held that there was a fiduciary relation between the Department of Posts and the CPIO, as they had to secure other interests also.
iii. Whether the appeal was in public interest? For this, the case of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi was referred to, in which the Supreme Court held that the meaning of public interest cannot be strictly defined and that it would have to be considered as per the statute. But it should be considered as something which affects the public at large and may also involve pecuniary interests. In the present case, it was held that the disclosure of the information sought by the plaintiff does not have any public interest behind it and that it was being sought only for individual purposes.
On the basis of the above observations, the commission rejected the 2nd appeal of the Appellant, as being an appeal to fulfil some personal purposes, and affirmed the stance of the CPIO stating that the disclosure of the information would cause nothing but disturbance to the Respondent. But at the same time, the Appellant was advised to approach an appropriate forum to seek the details of the expiry of the reservation of the post office in the land bought by him.
Judgement analysis
Following points can be analyzed after going through the judgement:
- This observation was actually correct as it was prima facie evident that there was no public interest involved in the information sought by the Appellant, and that it was for his personal purposes, considering that he purchased the property for his own self.
- But a question may arise as to what secrets can be so important, the disclosure of which could lead to a volley of cases being launched against the Respondent. The observation was perhaps correct in the sense as the Appellant was allowed to seek the necessary information from an appropriate forum.
- Further, the fiduciary relation was also properly established, which made it essential for the authorities to avoid disclosure of such information which would cause harm to the governmental machinery in general.
Conclusion
From the above case, it can be concluded that the CPIO has the power to reject an application seeking any information, if such information would not be in public interest and would also case harm to the other party.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
