2012 (11) TMI 922 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenging vires of RTI Act - Public Interest - held that - Public interest is an expression which has found its way in several legislations and has been repeatedly and elaborately interpreted by the Courts and the ground of public interest being an amorphous, nebulous or vague and indefinite concept held to be not available for assailing the provision. It thus cannot be said that the use of the words public interest in the proviso vests unguided discretion in the Competent Authority. The challenge to the vires of Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is rejected. As far as the challenge to the order dated 06.11.2012 of the CIC on merits is concerned, the same as aforesaid is to be considered by the learned Single Judge. The senior counsel for the petitioner states that the time granted by the CIC to SEBI for providing information is expiring tomorrow and unless operation of the order of the CIC is stayed, the writ petition may become infructuous. On this submission, the writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge as per Roster for consideration, on 22nd November, 2012.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order of Central Information Commission (CIC) allowing disclosure of information under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Vires of the 'proviso' to the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) as ultra vires, unconstitutional, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenges the CIC's order allowing disclosure of information under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The petitioner also contests the vires of the 'proviso' to these exemptions, arguing that it grants unguided discretion to the Competent Authority to override exemptions based on public interest without defining "larger public interest," violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. Section 8 of the RTI Act exempts certain information from disclosure, including commercial confidence, trade secrets, and information available in fiduciary relationships, subject to the larger public interest. The petitioner challenges the 'proviso' to these exemptions, claiming it is too broadly worded and arbitrary. However, the court finds no merit in this challenge, emphasizing that "public interest" is a well-defined concept and not vague.

3. The court cites previous judgments to support its stance that the concept of "public interest" is clear and not undefined. It highlights the importance of harmonizing conflicting interests in the RTI Act, balancing the need for transparency with the preservation of sensitive information. The court notes that the right to information is crucial for fighting corruption and ensuring accountability.

4. The court rejects the challenge to the vires of Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, affirming that the exemptions are essential for protecting privacy, national security, and public interest. It stresses that individuals claiming exemptions have avenues to challenge public interest claims through appeals and judicial review.

5. The court concludes that the 'proviso' to Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) does not introduce new concepts and upholds the exemptions under the RTI Act. The challenge to the CIC's order is referred to a Single Judge for further consideration, ensuring the petitioner's concerns are addressed within the legal framework.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised regarding the CIC's order, the vires of the 'proviso' to Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e), and the broader implications for public interest and transparency under the RTI Act.