Central Information Commission
Mr. Supratic Chakraborty vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 14 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000945/18910
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000945
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Supratic Chakraborty
117, Nandan Kanan (South)
P.O. Rahara
Dist: 24 Parganas (North)
Kolkata -- 700 064
Respondent : Mr. Malikarjun Rao
Public Information Officer & Registrar Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics 1/AF Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700 064 RTI application filed on : 30/07/2011 PIO replied : 24/11/2011 First Appeal : 26/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 09/01/2012 Second Appeal received on : 28/03/2012 S.n Queries Reply o 1 Please provide me a certified The reported remarks have been made by the Director briefly in a copy of the letter, written by close door meeting of the faculty members of the Institute. Many an Hon'ble Member of the Important points are discussed confidentially with the faculty Parliament (MP) to the members in such meetings which are not expected to be leaked outside Hon'ble Prime Minister of by the faculty members. As all such informal discussions are not India on Saha Institute of minuted, no such written record Is available on the remarks mentioned Nuclear Physics in June, 2011. and hence exact sentences mentioned In RTI application can not be 2 Certified copy of all confirmed. The said letter of an M.P. was not addressed to us and documents along with the complete text is also not with us. The available part of the letter, being letter. incomplete and confidential In nature, cannot be provided. It is to be 3 Certified copy of all noted that Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics has a faculty member of documents on the action taken same name as the applicant with similar residential address. in response to the said letter.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory. Order of the FAA:
"I agree with the contention of the Deemed PIO Viz AAO, Directors Office. SINP, The letter received from the PMO through Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission contains some part of the letter without the necessary annexure from an MP addressed to the PMO . As the letter has been marked and classified as Confidential' & addressed to the Director, SINP, it can not be de-classified at this level and handed over by the Director's office. SINP since it is exempted Under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act being Fiduciary in nature."Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply of the CPIO dtd 24/11/2011. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Supratic Chakraborty on video conference from NIC-Pargana Studio; Respondent: Mr. Malikarjun Rao, Public Information Officer & Registrar and Mr. M. Rajsekhjar, Advocate for Institute on video conference from NIC-Kolkata NITPU Studio; The RTI Application had been sent to the PIO, PMO and ultimately reached the present PIO only on 17/10/2011. The PIO states that the information sought by the appellant was received from Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) in a confidential manner. He states that he believes this information was given to them in confidence and hence is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Respondent also claims that this may not be complete information and the complete information is with the DAE or with the PMO. In the instant case the RTI application had been filed with the PMO and has traveled to the PIO after being routed through the DAE. The Commission examines whether the information sought by the Appellant is covered by Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;' The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In the instant case this is information given by one public authority to another and this certainly cannot qualify information as exempt under fiduciary capacity.
In view of this the PIO's claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not upheld.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per available records to the Appellant before 05 June 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 14 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ss) Page 2 of 2