The main legal point established is that while certain information may be exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, there is a need for transparency and accountability, and the information should be provided with necessary exclusions and safeguards.

V.K. Jain, J.

1. The issue involved in these petitions as to whether the copies of office notings recorded on the file of UPSC and the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department seeking its advice can be accessed, by the person to whom such advice relates, in RTI Act or not. The respondent in W.P(C) No.4079/2013 sought information from the CPIO of the petitioner – Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UPSC”), with respect to the advice given by the petitioner – UPSC to the Government of Maharashtra in respect of departmental proceedings against him. The CPIO having declined the information sought by the respondent, an appeal was preferred by him before the First Appellate Authority. Since the appeal filed by him was dismissed, the respondent approached the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) by way of a second appeal. Vide impugned order dated 1.5.2013, the Commission rejected the contention of the petitioner – UPSC that the said information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (e), (g) & (j) of the Right to Information Act (the Act) and directed the petitioner to disclose the file notings relating to the matter in hand to the respondent, with liberty to the petitioner –UPSC to obliterate the name and designation of the officer who made the said notings. Being aggrieved, the petitioner – UPSC is before this Court by way of this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.4079/2013&connected petitions Page 3 of 15

2. The respondent in W.P(C) No.2/2013 sought the information from the petitioner – UPSC with respect to the advice given by it in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said respondent. The said information having been denied by the CPIO as well as the First Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Commission by way of a second appeal. The Commission vide the impugned order dated 26.9.2012 directed the petitioner to provide, to the respondent, the photocopies of the relevant file after masking the signatures of the officers including other identity marks. Being aggrieved, the petitioner – UPSC is before this Court seeking quashing of the aforesaid order passed by the Commission.

3. In W.P(C) No. 5603/2013, the respondent before this Court sought information with respect to the advice given by UPSC to the State of Haryana with respect to the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. The said information having been refused by the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority, he also approached the Commission by way of a second appeal. The Commission rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and directed disclosure of the file notings and the correspondence relating to the charge-sheet against the respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved from the said order is before this Court by way of this petition.

4. In W.P(C) No.8/2013, the respondent before this Court sought information with respect to the advice given by UPSC in a case of disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. The said information, however, was denied by the CPIO of UPSC. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The appeal, however, came to be dismissed. The respondent thereupon approached the Commission by way of a second appeal. The Commission vide the impugned order dated 26.9.2012 directed disclosure of the information to the respondent. The petitioner – UPSC is aggrieved from the aforesaid order passed by the Commission.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner – UPSC Mr. Naresh Kaushik has assailed the order passed by the Commission on the following grounds (i) there is a fiduciary relationship between UPSC and the department which seeks its advice and the information provided by the Department is held by UPSC in trust for it. The said information, therefore, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act (ii) the file notings and the correspondences exchanged