Central Information Commission
Anupam Joardar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 31 October, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2018/614429-BJ
Mr. Anupam Joardar
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO/Chief (RTI)
Life Insurance Corporation of India
RTI Department, Central Office
5th Floor (West Wing), Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg
P O Box No. 19953, Mumbai - 400021
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.10.2019
Date of Decision : 31.10.2019
Date of RTI application 03.11.2017
24.01CPIO's response 16.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 12.12.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 18.12.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the details of the total number of court cases pending/dismissed/withdrawn/disposed of throughout India in different Labour Court/ High Court/Supreme Court between LIC of India versus DSE/CO/DSE's, Union/DSE's Association/CO's union/CO's Association and/or any other of/body representing workers; the case number and present status of the case as on date individually and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.11.2017, provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 18.12.2017 while relying upon the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003873; Appeal No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00531 and Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001426/04589 dated 30.08.2013 in the matter of Shri Aseem Takyar v/s CPIO, DMRC, upheld the CPIO's response.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Anupam Joardar through VC;
Respondent: Mrs. Anjali Deshpande, AO and Mr. Dilip Shirvhate through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information on point no. 05 regarding the engagement of legal experts / lawyers to deal with the cases and / or conciliation proceedings and the legal fees/ remuneration offered to the legal experts/ lawyers was incorrectly denied u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Drawing reference to Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 and Section 29 of the LIC Act, it was argued that the information could have been obtained from the concerned authorities as it is already reflected in the operational expenses in the annual report each year. It was also submitted that the LIC had been incurring inordinately high expenses to contest various cases against its own employees which amounted to a huge burden on the budgetary resources of the Corporation. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the information on point no. 05 was denied to the Appellant since it related to commercial confidence, trade secrets which was also held in a fiduciary relationship with their empanelled Advocate, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the corporation and that no larger public interest was involved in seeking this information. The Appellant contested the aforementioned submission and stated that he was not seeking the names of the Advocates and remuneration paid to them individually but the consolidated amount of remuneration paid to legal expert / lawyer in various cases / conciliation proceedings. The Respondent in turn re-iterated their earlier submission that the information was exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 and contested that the Appellant did not seek generic details but desired the information in the specific context of disputes between LIC of India versus the DSE/CO/ DSE-CO Unions/ COs Association and/or any other body representing workers. A reference was made to the decision of the Commission in a similar matter in Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/614463-BJ dated 25.10.2019.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil, wherein while contesting the decisions of the Commission relied upon by the FAA in his order, it was inter alia prayed to the Commission to provide him the information sought under point 05 of the RTI application.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 29.10.2019, wherein while reiterating the chronological sequence of events, it was submitted that the CPIO had provided all the information sought by the Appellant but denied only on point no. 05 under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005 which pertained to information regarding engagement of their Advocates and fee paid to them. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority had also upheld the decision of the CPIO as the same was related to commercial confidence, trade secrets as also held under fiduciary relationship with their empanelled Advocate, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the corporation and that no larger public interest was involved in seeking this information. It was further informed that similar matter had been heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/614463-BJ dated 25.10.2019 wherein the Commission held as under:-
"Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."Page 2 of 5
In view of the above facts, it was requested to the Commission to dismiss the instant Appeal filed by the Appellant.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers Page 3 of 5 sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Furthermore, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO vs. Hemant Kumar Behera W.P.(C) 11658/2017 & CM No. 47383/2017 dated 27.08.2018 held as under:
"17. Mere apprehension that a third party has declared income, which is lower than the true income, cannot justify disclosure of Income Tax Returns in larger public interest."
In the context of the information sought in point no. 05 of the RTI application, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors) in Civil Appeal NO. 7571 of 2011- dated 02/09/2011, wherein it was held that:
"The use of the words "person" shows that the holder of the information in a fiduciary relationship need not only be a 'public authority' as the word 'person' is of much wider import than the word 'public authority'. Therefore the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is available not only in regard to information that is held by a public authority (in this case the examining body) in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any information that is given or made available by a public authority to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary relationship. In other words, anything given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to a person in fiduciary relationship".
Furthermore, in the matter of Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
14. "....Such information would clearly disclose the pricing policy of the assessee and public disclosure of this information may clearly jeopardise the bargaining power available to the assessee since the data as to costs would be available to all agencies dealing with the assessee. It is, thus, essential that information relating to business affairs, which is considered to be confidential by an assessee must remain so, unless it is necessary in larger public interest to disclose the same. If the nature of information is such that disclosure of which may have the propensity of harming one's competitive interests, it would not be necessary to specifically show as to how disclosure of such information would, in fact, harm the competitive interest of a third party. In order to test the applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act it is necessary to first and foremost determine the nature of information and if the nature of information is confidential information relating to the affairs of a private entity that is not obliged to be placed in public domain, then it is necessary to consider whether its disclosure can possibly have an adverse effect on third parties."
The Commission noted that a similar matter had been heard and adjudicated by it in Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/614463-BJ dated 25.10.2019.
Page 4 of 5DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/614463-BJ dated 25.10.2019, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 31.10.2019
Page 5 of 5