Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 12625
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, Commissioner
Onkar Das – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 650425 | 650424 | 650423 | 650421 | 649991 | 649988 | 649985 | 649984 | 649983 | 649980
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Ravinder Murari
The RTI Act does not provide a blanket exemption for sub-judice matters. Denial of information must be specifically substantiated under the exemption clauses of Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, 2005, rather than citing general grounds like pendency of legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(b), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j), and 9 - Denial of information on grounds of sub-judice, personal information, or commercial confidence - Justification required for exemptions - Sub-judice status is not a standalone ground for exemption - Respondent directed to provide revised point-wise replies specifying valid exemption clauses.
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed multiple RTI applications seeking certified copies of various documents, including committee reports, note sheets, and arbitration awards related to employment, internal complaints, and vendor payments. The CPIO and FAA denied these requests citing sections 8(1)(b), 8(1)(d), and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed second appeals, challenging the denial.
Findings of Court:
The Commission observed that mere invocation of sub-judice status is insufficient for denial. CPIOs must specify which exemption clause under Sections 8 or 9 applies. In cases where the provided grounds for commercial confidence were found valid, the appeals were dismissed; otherwise, the CPIO was ordered to provide revised replies.
Issues: Whether the denial of information based on sub-judice status, personal interest, or commercial confidence was justified under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Information cannot be withheld merely because a matter is pending before a court; specific statutory exemption clauses under the RTI Act must be substantiated. Where the CPIO failed to justify the claim for exemption or provided evasive replies, the matter was remanded for a point-wise review.
Result: Appeals partly allowed and partly dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of rti applications, cpio denials, and appellant complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. sub-judice status does not exempt information under rti; valid exemption clauses must be specified. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 3. appeals regarding commercial confidence were dismissed as the cpio provided appropriate replies. (Para 16) |
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
| Sl. No. | Second Appeal No. | Date of RTI Application | Date of CPIO’s Reply | Date of First Appeal | Date of FAA’s Order | Date of Second Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 650425 | 24.07.2024 | 12.08.2024 | 01.09.2024 | 26.09.2024 | Nil. |
| 2. | 650424 | 25.07.2024 | 20.08.2024 | 01.09.2024 | 26.09.2024 | Nil. |
| 3. | 650423 | 25.07.2024 | 19.08.2024 | 01.09.2024 | 26.09.2024 | Nil. |
| 4. | 650421 | 24.07.2024 | 12.08.2024 | 01.09.2024 | 26.09.2024 | Nil. |
| 5. | 649991 | 24.07.2024 | 12.08.2024 | 01.09.2024 | 26.09.2024 | Nil. |
| 6. | 649988 | 24.07.2024 | 19.08.2024 | 01.09.2024 | 26.09.2024 | Nil. |
| 7. | 649985 | 22.07.2024 | 12.08.2024 | 23.08.2024 | 31.08.2024 | Nil. |
| 8. | 649984 | 22.07.2024 | 12.08.2024 | 23.08.2024 | 31.08.2024 | Nil. |
| 9. | 649983 | 22.07.2024 | 12.08.2024 | 23.08.2024 | 31.08.2024 | Nil. |
| 10. | 649980 | 22.07.2024 | 12.08.2024 | 23.08.2024 | 31.08.2024 | Nil. |
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 25.11.2025
Date of Decision: 26.11.2025
CORAM:
Hon’ble Commissioner
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
O R D E R
Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/650425
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
a) Certified copy of the Award/judgment of the Hon'ble Arbitration delivered in the IR case between BSNL and M/s IDEA.
b) Certified copy of the Affidavit filed by EZBC, BSNL, Kolkata, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the appeal case filed by M/s IDEA challenging the Award/judgment of the Hon'ble sole Arbitrator in the IR case mentioned at SI. (a) above.
c) Certified copy of the note sheets containing all the Notes of the e-File in which appointment of senior advocate/counsel has been processed and approved for pleading the above case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“We regret to inform you that the requested information cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 (Chapter-II) as the matter is sub judice. Discloser of the information asked may interfere with judicial proceedings and try to obstruct justice. Such disclosure may cause destroying of evidence, intimidate witnesses and constitute contempt of court.”
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 26.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2024/650424
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
With reference to Kol TD letter vide No.: AGM/HR/SC & ST/Complaint/3, Dated: 17.10.2023 following information may be furnished please:
a) Certified copy of the report of the committee as mentioned at 2nd Para under SI. 5 of the above letter, Dated: 17.10.2023.
b) Certified copy of the note sheets containing all the Notes of EZBC e-File Computer No.: 329857 and Computer No.: 93926 related to the complaint of Sri Uttam Mandal.
c) Certified copy of other notes of these files or other file/s referred in the notes as at SI. (b) above.
d) Certified copy of all the documents, letters, orders and other records considered in the above case/matter in the above files.
e) Certified copy of BSNL Corporate Office order/letter relevant to this matter but not considered.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“The re
