Limits of Disclosure: CIC Rules on RTI Access to Private Concessionaire Records under NHAI

In a recent decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has reinforced the functional boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, specifically concerning the disclosure of documents held by private entities operating under public contracts. Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha ruled that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) cannot be compelled to provide internal records of private third-party companies, such as CSR audit reports or proprietary material procurement logs, if such information is not within the control of the public authority.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The appellant, R. R. Mehta, filed an RTI application in February 2025 seeking a comprehensive breakdown of NHAI project details, CSR spending by private concessionaires, material procurement records (challans and vouchers), and labor wage details for various NHAI projects in Jharkhand. The initial response from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) cited Section 8(d) of the RTI Act, claiming the information constituted commercial confidence and trade secrets. Dissatisfied, Mehta moved to the second appeal.

Identifying the Legal Friction

The central legal question was: To what extent can a public authority be held responsible for providing records generated and maintained by a private contractor (concessionaire) hired under a Hybrid Annuity Model (HAM)? The appellant contended that since these companies operate under the NHAI’s umbrella, their operational records should be public property.

The respondent argued that private firms operating under HAM or BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) models are independent legal entities. Consequently, the internal financial, procurement, and labor records of these firms are not part of the NHAI’s official repository, placing them outside the scope of "information held by" or "under the control of" a public authority as defined under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act.

Legal Analysis: The Scope of 'Public Authority'

The Commission’s analysis relied on a strict interpretation of the RTI Act. It clarified that: 1. Public vs. Private Control : The RTI Act mandates that a public authority provides what is physically held or under its direct administrative control. 2. Contractual Dynamics : Private companies are not "public authorities" under Section 2(h) of the Act. While the NHAI oversees project implementation, it does not act as a custodian for the internal daily accounting or human resources records of its private partners. 3. Alternative Avenues : The CIC noted that complaints regarding labor laws or environmental violations related to mining or taxes should be directed to the relevant state government departments—such as the Labor Commission or District Mining Office—rather than through an RTI request to the NHAI.

Key Observations

The Commission’s reasoning underscored the necessity of jurisdictional clarity: * "RTI अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 2(f) और 2(j) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार, एक लोक प्राधिकरण केवल वही सूचना प्रदान कर सकता है जो उसके पास भौतिक रूप से उपलब्ध हो या उसके नियंत्रण में हो।" (As per Sections 2(f) and 2(j), a public authority can only provide information physically available or under its control.) * "निमांड सामग्री के दैनिक खरीद रजिस्टर, वाहन-वार चालान... रियायतग्राही के आंतरिक रिकॉर्ड होते हैं। भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राधिकरण (NHAI) द्वारा अपने आधिकारिक कार्य के सामान्य क्रम में ये रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखे जाते हैं।" (Material procurement registers and challans are internal records of the concessionaire. They are not maintained by NHAI in the normal course of its official business.) * "भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राधिकरण (NHAI) इन प्राइवेट कंपनियों के आंतरिक सीएसआर (CSR) फंड का न तो संग्रहण करता है, न ही उसका प्रबंधन या ऑडिट करता है।" (NHAI neither collects, manages, nor audits the internal CSR funds of these private companies.)

Final Decision

The Commission observed that the information sought was similar to a matter already adjudicated in an earlier appeal (File No. CIC/NHAIN/A/2025/112179). Further, the Respondent had provided a comprehensive, updated reply to the appellant in May 2026. Concluding that no further intervention was necessary, the CIC disposed of the appeal, leaving it to the appellant to approach the appropriate state departments for regulatory grievances.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder for RTI applicants that while the "public interest" is a cornerstone of the Act, the mandate of transparency does not extend to the private records of independent entities unless those records are already integrated into the official files of the relevant government body.