Dismissal of RTI Appeal Regarding Commercial Data Under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act: Central Information Commission - 2026-06-06

Transparency Versus Trade Secrets: CIC Denies Disclosure of NTPC Commercial Lease Records

In a recent order, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reaffirmed the sanctity of "commercial confidence" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, dismissing an appeal filed by Hemant Mishra against the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC). The decision underscores the limitations of the RTI framework when information seeker interests clash with protected trade and commercial data.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The case originated from an RTI application dated January 8, 2025, filed by Hemant Mishra. The appellant sought granular details regarding the land used by NTPC’s Vindyachal Project for its "ash dyke"—an industrial structure used to store fly ash—at the Rihand Reservoir. Specifically, the request demanded: * Complete land records, including Khasra numbers and area details. * Certified copies of lease agreements. * Details regarding annual rental payments for the leased land. * Government directives (Shasnadesh) authorizing these agreements.

The CPIO initially denied sections related to the lease agreements and rentals, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that includes commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property from disclosure, provided such disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.

Arguments from the Ring

The appellant argued that the land in question is public property and that lease arrangements involve public resources, necessitating transparency. He contended that the disclosure of such documents is vital for democratic accountability and does not constitute a "trade secret."

Conversely, NTPC’s CPIO, represented by Sh. Vikash Kumar, maintained that the requested information contains sensitive commercial data. The respondent further highlighted that the appellant has filed over 100 RTI applications, raising concerns that the current petition was motivated by personal grievances rather than a pursuit of the public interest. NTPC argued that the existing RTI framework is designed for the dissemination of information rather than the arbitration of personal disputes.

The Commission’s Stance

Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha, upon reviewing the proceedings, noted that the respondent had provided a point-wise response consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission further observed that the appellant chose not to participate in the hearing—neither in person nor via video conferencing—to challenge the arguments presented by NTPC.

Key Observations

The Commission’s decision leaned heavily on the established legal threshold for exemption under the RTI Act. Key reasoning from the order includes:

• On Commercial Exemption: "Your desired information relates to commercial confidence and trade secrecy, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third parties. Moreover, there is no larger public interest involved that justifies the disclosure of such information."
• On Regulatory Compliance: "The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent, and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable point-wise reply based on available records and in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act was furnished by the CPIO."

Implications of the Ruling

The appeal was subsequently dismissed. This ruling serves as a reminder to RTI applicants that the right to information is not absolute. When a Public Authority can demonstrate that disclosure would damage its legitimate competitive commercial standing or that of a third party, the Commission will prioritize the provisions of Section 8(1)(d). For corporate entities like NTPC, this decision provides a layer of protection against the intrusive disclosure of commercial lease terms, provided the authority adheres to the procedural mandates of the RTI Act by offering a clear, point-wise justification for their refusals.