Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jayant Nath, J.
Goods & Service Tax Network - Appellant
Versus
Information Commissioner, CIC & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11399 of 2016
Decided On : 18-08-2020
Ravinder Singh, Advocate, Ankita Patnaik, Advocate, Raveesha Gupta, Advocate, J.K. Mittal, Advocate, Vandana Mittal, Advocate, Priyanka Saxena, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for larger public interest to warrant disclosure of exempted information under the RTI Act, 2005, particularly related to commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property. The judgment also highlights the potential harm to a party's competitive position and the need to avoid indiscriminate and impractical demands for information disclosure.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Information Disclosure - Section 8(1)(d) - Section 8(1)(j) - Companies Act, 1956 - [GSTN] - [RTI Act, 2005, Section 8(1)(d), Section 8(1)(j), Companies Act, 1956] - The court discussed the exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, related to commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property. The court also referred to the Companies Act, 1956, in the context of the petitioner being a non-government private limited company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The court highlighted the interpretation of the legal provisions and their influence on the decision, emphasizing the need for larger public interest to warrant disclosure of exempted information.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a non-government private limited company, sought to quash an order directing the disclosure of minutes of board meetings and resolutions under an RTI application. The petitioner claimed exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, citing commercial confidence and lack of public interest. The court analyzed the contentions and the impugned order, noting the potential harm to the petitioner's competitive position.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was vague and failed to adjudicate the petitioner's contention regarding the confidential nature of the information sought. It emphasized the need for larger public interest to warrant disclosure and highlighted the potential harm to the petitioner's competitive position. The court also referenced relevant judgments to support its findings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner's claim of lack of public interest, and the potential harm to the petitioner's competitive position due to disclosure of the requested information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and the need for larger public interest to warrant disclosure of exempted information. The court also considered the potential harm to the petitioner's competitive position and the impractical demands for disclosure of information unrelated to transparency and accountability.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIC for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to determine the exempted information and the potential misuse or abuse of the RTI Act. The petition was disposed of, and pending applications were also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Jayant Nath, J. - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 13.10.2016 passed by respondent No.1/Information Commissioner, CIC.
2. It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner is a non-government private limited company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Government of India holds 24.5% equity in the Company and all States of Union of India including Government of NCT of Delhi and Puducherry together hold 24.5% equity shares. Balance 51 % equity shares are held by other non-governmental financial institutions. It is stated that the Company was set up primarily to provide IT infrastructure and services to the Central and State Governments, tax payers and other stakeholders for implementation of the Goods and Services Tax.
3. It is pleaded that the petitioner Company is responsible for providing a uniform interface for the tax payer and a common and shared IT infrastructure between the Central Government and the States.
4. Respondent No. 2 is said to have filed an RTI application addressed to CPIO of the petitioner Company on 16.08.2014 seeking the following information:-
"A. Number of Meetings of GSTN''s Board of Directors held from 28.03.2013 till date along with the date of each meeting.
B. Date on which the AGM of GSTN has been held in the year 2013 and 2014.
C. Copies of Minutes of all the Board meetings as referred above along with minutes of the AGM.
D. Total no. of Resolutions passed by the GSTN''s Board of Directors from 28.03.2013 till date, along with the date of each resolution.
E. Copies of the Resolutions as referred to above."
5. It is pleaded that the concerned CPIO on 17.09.2014 provided information to respondent No. 2 for points A and B above. For points C to E, the said information was in relation to the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors which was confidential and hence, could not be made open to the public at large. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 2 has not been able to establish any public interest in seeking the said information from the petitioner Company and therefore, information sought by respondent No. 2 as above is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2014 of CPIO, filed a first appeal dated 20.09.2014 under Section 19 of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 20.10.2014.
7. Respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the said order dated 20.10.2014 preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1. Vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2016, respondent No. 1 has directed the petitioner to provide copies of the minutes of the board meetings as well as the resolutions for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2015 after severance of the record containing information which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. Needful was to be done within four weeks. Hence, this writ petition.
8. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has misunderstood the RTI Act in relation to an application seeking/obtaining information. It is stated that the provisions of Section 6 of the RTI Act unambiguously do not mandate any applicant to establish that the information that is being sought is in larger public interest. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has misunderstood the provisions of Sections 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is pleaded that information as sought at points C to E of the RTI application does not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy as claimed by the petitioner.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. A perusal of the grounds to the writ petition would show that various pleas are taken as to why the impugned order may be set aside. Most of these pleas have been reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioner. The following pleas have been urged:-
(i) It has been pleaded th
