9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 531 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking information from GSTN under RTI - Exemption from Disclosure of information - Section 8(1) (d) and Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 - Respondents (CIC) has directed the petitioner to provide copies of the minutes of the board meetings as well as the resolutions for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2015 after severance of the record containing information which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. HELD THAT - the minutes of the board meetings are bound to contain some confidential information relating to the commercial aspects of the company, the technological aspects of the technology and other IT network that it is providing to various governments/government agencies. It would include information of commercial confidence, information which can be termed to be trade secrets, information which can be termed to be intellectual property regarding the various IT technologies used. Disclosure of such information is likely to harm the interest of the petitioner. Respondent has failed to show that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. This aspect has not been noted or stated in the impugned order. The CIC had passed a decision to give the Minutes of the Board Meeting directing expunction of information which was exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Hence, as noted by the aforenoted judgment, the CIC left the whole thing at the discretion of the petitioner which was held not to be the correct approach. A perusal of the reply given by the CPIO dated 17.09.2014 to respondent No. 2 s application shows that there were in all 10 Board Meetings that had been held. Further details are not on record. In the facts of this case, it would be for the CIC to go into the minutes of the Board Meetings and of the AGMs and to determine as to which of the information which is contained in the minutes attracts the provision of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, namely, are exempt from disclosure and which portion of the minutes can be given to respondent No. 2 in response to his application under the RTI Act. The matter is remanded back to the CIC for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act regarding commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property. 2. Requirement of establishing public interest for disclosure under the RTI Act. 3. Examination of the confidentiality and commercial sensitivity of the requested information. 4. Adequacy and correctness of the CIC's order directing severance of exempt information. 5. Judicial precedents related to disclosure of minutes of board meetings under the RTI Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act: The petitioner argued that the information sought by Respondent No. 2, including minutes of board meetings and resolutions, falls under the exemption of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. This section exempts information related to commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party unless a competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants such disclosure. The petitioner emphasized that the requested information contains sensitive details about IT infrastructure, commercial activities, and future plans which are crucial for the competitive position of the company. 2. Requirement of Establishing Public Interest: The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 did not establish any public interest in seeking the information. The RTI Act mandates that for information exempt under Section 8(1)(d) to be disclosed, it must be shown that larger public interest warrants such disclosure. The petitioner argued that the CIC's order did not address this requirement adequately and failed to provide reasons for rejecting the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of public interest. 3. Examination of Confidentiality and Commercial Sensitivity: The court noted that the minutes of the board meetings are bound to contain confidential information related to the commercial aspects of the company, including technological and IT network details provided to various governments. Disclosure of such information could harm the petitioner's interests. The court emphasized that the CIC should have examined the minutes to determine which portions are exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and which can be disclosed, rather than leaving the decision to the petitioner. 4. Adequacy and Correctness of the CIC's Order: The court found the CIC's order directing the petitioner to provide copies of the minutes after severance of exempt information to be vague. The CIC did not adjudicate the petitioner's contention that the entire information in the minutes is confidential. The court held that the CIC should have examined the minutes to determine the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) and provided clear directions on which portions can be disclosed. 5. Judicial Precedents: The court referred to several judicial precedents, including: - Reserve Bank of India vs. Kishanlal Mittal: The court highlighted that the CIC should not leave the decision of severing exempt information to the petitioner but should examine the information itself. - Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict interpretation of exemption clauses and the requirement to show larger public interest for disclosure of confidential information. - Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay: The court noted that indiscriminate demands for information under the RTI Act can be counterproductive and should not obstruct the functioning of public authorities. Conclusion: The court set aside the CIC's order and remanded the matter back to the CIC for fresh consideration. The CIC is directed to examine the minutes of the board meetings and AGMs to determine which portions are exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and which can be disclosed. The CIC should also consider whether the demand for information falls under the category of being counterproductive and a misuse of the RTI Act as noted by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
