Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5329

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Jaya Varma Sinha, Information Commissioner
Sunil Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
CIC/BSNLD/A/2025/107454

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Ankur Tiwari

Information pertaining to third-party commercial contracts is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act; however, public authorities are statutorily mandated under Section 4 to proactively disclose information to ensure transparency and reduce reliance on RTI filings.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(d), 4(1)(b) and 25(5) - Disclosure of information pertaining to third-party contractors - Commercial confidence - Public authorities are obligated to proactively disclose information under Section 4(1)(b), yet information regarding specific commercial contracts held by third parties may be exempted if disclosure harms their competitive position and no larger public interest is established. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Role of Information Commissions - Commissions are mandated to monitor compliance with Section 4 obligations to ensure transparency and accountability, and may issue advisories to public authorities to implement proactive disclosure measures to reduce the burden of repetitive RTI applications. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking detailed records, including payment details and work-related specifications, concerning a third-party infrastructure company's work in a specific district. The respondent denied the request, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, claiming that the requested data constitutes commercial confidence and financial details of a third-party vendor.

Findings of Court:
The Commission upheld the respondent's denial of information regarding the third-party contractor, finding the reply adequate under Section 8(1)(d). However, noting the respondent's failure to maintain proactive disclosures as per Section 4(1)(b), the Commission issued an advisory to the public authority to update and upload mandatory information to their website.

Issues: Whether the requested information regarding a third-party contractor is protected under Section 8(1)(d) and whether the public authority is in compliance with proactive disclosure requirements under Section 4.

Ratio Decidendi: Information touching upon the commercial secrets and competitive position of a third party is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) absent a showing of larger public interest. Additionally, public authorities have a statutory duty to proactively disclose information under Section 4 to promote transparency and minimize the need for RTI filings.

Result: Appeal disposed of with an advisory for compliance with Section 4.

Table of Content
1. third party commercial information is exempt under section 8(1)(d). (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. public authorities must ensure proactive disclosure under section 4. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 17.11.2024

CPIO replied on : 03.02.2025

First appeal filed on : 29.12.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record

2nd Appeal dated : 03.03.2025

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.11.2024(offline) seeking the following information:

“िवषय : सूचना अिधिनयम 2005 क धारा 6 (1) के अतगत M/s A.K. Infra & Associate, C-1180, इंदरा नगर, लखनऊ म ारा माननीय धानमंी जी के ीम ोजेट जौनपुर के मुंगराबादशाहपुर म BSNL NOFN-Phasell के कराए जा रहे काय क सूचना उपलध कराए जाने के संबंध म

महोदय,

कृ पया िनिलिखत क सूचना उपलध कराने का क कर.......

1. M/s A.K. Infra & Associate फम ारा जौनपुर के मुंगराबादशाहपुर म BSNL NOFN-II ारा फम को कतना काय िमला था व िमले हुए काय का कतना काय कराया जा चुका है, काय आदेश अनुसार मवार PLB क गहराई व fiber AT, चैबर आद मानक सिहत थान के अनुसार िवतृत िववरण उपलध कराए।ं

2. M/s A.K. Infra & Associate फम ारा जौनपुर के मुंगराबादशाहपुर म BSNL NOFN-II ारा कया जा रहे काय का कु ल कतना भुगतान दनांक : 13/11/2024 तक कया जा चुका है काय आदेश अनुसार मवार दनांक सिहत िवतृत िववरण उपलध कराएं मांगी गई सूचनाएं (मांक 1 व 2) अिधिनयम क धारा (8) के अतगत नह आती ह।ै“

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.02.2025 stating as under:

"आपके पांक दनांकः 18/02/2025 ारा मांगी गई सूचना मांक 2 के म संया 1 एवं 2 के संबंध म, जनसूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 क धारा 8(1)(D) के अनुसार िवभागीय िहत को यान म रखते ए वािणियक गु बात, वसाियक रहय और बौिक सपदा क सूचना को कट नह कया जा सकता है।"

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2024. The FAA order is not available on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Shri Ankur Tiwari, CPIO-cum-Manager, attended the hearing through VC.

5. The Appellant stated that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 03.02.2025. He further added that the Respondent Public Authority has not uploaded any information in compliance with Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act ON THEIR website.

6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application was seeking information pertaining to some other contractor and disclosure of such information may harm the competitive position of third party. Accordingly, the same has been denied under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.

7. A written submission has been received from CPIO, vide letter dated 09.04.2026, stating as under:

“उपरो िवषयक करण मिनिलिखत तय िवनतापूवक िनवेदनाथ तुत ह.

ी सुनील गुा का आरटीआई आवेदन दनांक 17.11.2024 इस कायालय को सुलतानपुर सीपीआईओ के मायम से ांसफर करदनांक 24.12.2024 को ा आ था, िजसका उर उपलध अिभलेख के आधार पर दनांक 08.01.2025 को ेिषत कर दया गया था।

आवेदक ारा तपात िविभ ितिथय पर समान/संबंिधत िवषय पर अनेक आरटीआई आवेदन तुत कए गए, िजनका िववरण िन ह।ै

दनांक 18.01.2025 (ािः 21.01.2025)

→ उर दनांक 03.02.2025, धारा 8 (1) (d) के अंतगत

दनांक 15.04.2025 (ािः 19.04.2025)

- उपलध अिभलेख के अनुसार कायवाही क गई

दनांक 20.05.2025 (ािः 28.05.2025)

- उर दनांक 12.06.2025, धारा 8 (1) (d) के अंतगत

उ आरटीआई आवेदन ममांगी गई सूचना तृतीय प (contractor/vendor) से संबंिधत थी, जो वािणियक गोपनीयता (commercial confidence) क ेणी म आती ह।ै अतः दनांक 22.01.2025 को संबंिधत तृतीय प को नोटस ेिषत कया गया, परंतु तृतीय प से कोई युर ा नह आ। ऐसी िथित म, सूचना का कटीकरण Right to Information Act, 2005 के अंतगत अपवजत ह।ै

आवेदक ारा समान िवषय पर बार-बार आरटीआई आवेदन तुत कए गए ह, िजनम पूव म उपलध कराई गई/ िनतारत जानकारी से संबंिधत िवषय पुनः उठाए गए ह। इससे शासिनक संसाधन एवं जौनपुर ािधकरण पर अनावयक भार पड़ता है िजससे अय आवयक काय बािधत हो रहे ह, तथािप येक आवेदन का िविधसमत परीण कर उर दान कया गया ह।ै मांगी गई सूचना वािणियक संवेदनशीलता से संबिं धत है तथ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5329

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONJaya Varma Sinha, Information CommissionerSunil Gupta – AppellantVersusBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – RespondentCIC/BSNLD/A/2025/107454

Information pertaining to third-party commercial contracts is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act; however, public authorities are statutorily mandated under Section 4 to proactively disclose information to ensure transparency and reduce reliance on RTI filings.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Jaya Varma Sinha, Information Commissioner
Sunil Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
CIC/BSNLD/A/2025/107454