Purview of 'Information'

Purview of ‘Information’

The Right To Information Act, 2005 has given much more power to its people than any other law. Its basic aim is to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

Our previous articles so far have dealt with what RTI really is, and the salient features of the RTI Act. To put in a nutshell what information really is – it means any material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press-releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data materials held in any electronic form and information relating to any authority under any other law for the time being in force.

However, we do not have absolute right to information in respect of each and every activity. There are some areas where the Government can withhold information and deny the same to people by giving cogent reasons. The golden principle is that, the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State legislature shall not be denied to the people as well. There are some areas that have been kept out of the purview of this law in view of security and integrity of the country and other such important matters.

Several such disclosures are provided in Section 8 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. The same has been reproduced below along with some illustrative questions:

A)    Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific, economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.

·        Can surveillance of telephone be treated as confidential?

 In a particular case, S. C. Sharma had asked for a copy of the order through which the Ministry of Home Affairs had authorized the CBI to intercept telephone calls under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The commission examined the issue and held that the specific cases of interception and surveillance by the authorized agency have to be kept highly confidential because of the very nature of the surveillance operation. Its security implications are undisputed.

B)   Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court.

·        In a recent judgement the Ministry of Railways has been specifically directed by the High Court not to place the enquiry report of a Godhra investigation report prepared by the committee on their behalf, before the Parliament.

C)   Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.

D)   Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property the disclosure of which would ham the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied  that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information

·         Can details of loans granted by banks be given?

No. The commission has held in the case of Jasvinder Singh Rana vs. Bank of Baroda that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual / third party, as per Section 8(1) (j). In this case it was found by the commission that the exemption from disclosure of information under section 8(1) (d) and (j) had been correctly applied by the appellate authority.

E)    Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information

·         Can evaluated answer sheets be shown and is it covered under fiduciary relationship? No, the evaluated answer sheets cannot be shown as they are covered under fiduciary relationship. The commission has held the following in the case of Treesa Irsh vs. Kerala Postal Circle:  “we find that in case of evaluated answer papers the information available with the public authority is, in his fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of which is exempt u/s 8(1)(e). Therefore, we hold that the 66 CPIO was justified in rejecting the request of the appellant for a copy of the evaluated answer paper.”

·         Is conducting of examination treated as a confidential activity?

 Yes. The commission has held in the case of Neeraj Kumar Singhal vs. Northern Railways that conduct of examinations and for identifying and short-listing the candidates in terms of technical competence, right attitude etc is a highly confidential activity. Therefore, answer-sheets should not be disclosed. However, the award of marks need not be kept secret

F)    Information received in confidence from foreign Government

This has been done as per international protocol

G)   Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.

H)   Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

·         Does disclosure of information when court case is at advance stage amount to impeding the process of investigation?

 This issue has been examined in a number of cases by the commission. The judgements delivered reveal that the commission has evaluated each case on merits and the stage at which it was. It has observed that in cases, which are at advance stage of prosecution or where the disclosure of information can lead to blocking the progress of case or will amount to setting the clock back, the information need not be provided. One such decisions is as under

 In the case Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs. Ministry of Finance it was found that when the Court had duly seized of the matter and prosecution had started in this case, the exemption from disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act had been correctly applied by the Appellate Authority of the Department of Revenue.

I)      Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers are exempted.

·        However, the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over. Thus one can seek the material on the basis of which decisions have been taken by the cabinet. However, those matters, which come under the exemptions specified in this section, shall not be disclosed

J)      Information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual

·        Annual immovable property returns cannot be given to third party. In the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. Ministry of Finance, the commission held that the information requested for (annual immovable property return of third person) is in the nature of personal information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual officer and hence its denial by CPIO is correct.

·        The annual performance appraisal report can’t be given as they are exempted under section 8(1)(j). In case of Tapas Dutta vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, it was held by the commission that the assessment reports by the superior officers were personal and confidential information and therefore exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

K)   Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest