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
