Central Information Commission
Ashok Chander Parkash vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 29 January, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2022/158423
Shri Ashok Chander Parkash ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Department of Legal Affairs
Date of Hearing : 19.01.2024
Date of Decision : 29.01.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.08.2022
PIO replied on : 22.08.2022
First Appeal filed on : 05.09.2022
First Appellate Order on : 13.09.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 22.12.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1) A copy of the Advice/ legal Opinion tendered by the Ld. ASG /Govt.
Counsel on the Order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.8653 of 2010 in the matter of Vijay Kumar Verma Vs. U.O.I. & Another along with
a) Copy of the reference addressed by the MOL (DOLA) to the Ld. ASG for obtaining Legal Opinion/Advice on the feasibility of challenging the said order & also.
b) The copy of the decision taken by the competent authority to implement the said order passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
2) Copy of the Legal advice given by the MOL (DOLA) to MOF (Deptt. of F.S) on the feasibility of challenging order dated 23th Sept.2014 passed in O.A.No. 1888 of 2014 by the Hon'ble C.A.T. (Ρ.Β.) N.Delhi in the matter of Mr. Irshad Hussain Vs. UOI & Ors.
Etc."
Page 1 of 13The CPIO vide letter dated 22.08.2022 replied as under:-
"2. Perusal of the application reveals that subject matter for point no. 1(a)&2 pertains to Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance and point no.3 is related to The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. So far as the Department of Legal Affairs is concerned, it is a 'service provider' Department which tenders advices in the capacity of a legal advisor to the referring Ministry/Department of the Government of India. The advices, if any, are recorded on the original file referred to it by the Administrative Ministry/Department and thereafter the complete file is returned to the referring Ministry/Department concerned. Thus, the referring Ministry / Department is the custodian of such file. Therefore, the information sought by the applicant may be provided by the concerned Administrative Ministry/Department only."
PIO, Department of Legal Affairs furnished reply vide letter dated 23.08.2022 as under :
"..Point No. 6: Please find enclosed copy of letter asked for. Point No. 7: As information pertains to CVC same is transferred to CVC..."` Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 13.09.2022 stated as under:-
"5. It may be stated that as far as undersigned is concerned, he is the Appellate Authority in respect of CPIO of RTI Cell. There are other Appellate Authorities who have been authorized to consider appeal against the decision of CPIO of Advice Side, Cash Section, Central Agency Section and other Sections Thus, the undersigned is having no jurisdiction to consider the grievances against other CPIOs, except for CPIO of RTI Cell. The appellant is advised to approach the concerned Appellate Authority, if he so desires.
6. As far as action of CPIO of RTI Cell for transferring the RTI request to other concerned CPIOs in the Department, attention is invited towards Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 which permit such transfer by CPIO, if the information. sought is under domain of another CPIO.
7. As far as contention of the Appellant for not providing any information in regard to item 6 and 7 of his RTI request, CPIO of RTI Cell has now submitted that request for items no. 6 and 7 have now transferred to CPIO of vigilance Section. Earlier, inadvertently, the same was not transferred.
8. Since the RTI request of appellant in regard to item 6 and 7 have been transferred to concerned CPIO, his grievances, on this point have been substantially addressed. Further, as mentioned in para 5 above, for his grievances in respect of decision of other CPIOs. he is advised to approach the concerned Appellate Authority, if he so desires."Page 2 of 13
PIO, Cash Section has furnished reply vide letter dated 17.08.2022 as under :
5. The details of the year-wise salary information w.e.f. 3rd April 2006 to December 2006 is enclosed Annexure -A Prior to 3rd April 2006, you are on the payroll of Branch Sectt., Kolkata. As such Point No. 5 & 5(a) of your application is also transferred to Branch Sectt. Kolkatta for providing information prior to 3/4/2006.
5(a). The relevant Pay Bill Register (PBR) Photocopy is enclosed, and authenticated by DDO/Cash Officer.
PIO, DRT, Financial Services furnished reply dated 20.08.2022 as under :
"..I am to refer to your application dated 08.08.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (received in the DRT Section on 14.09.2022) and to inform you that the information sought by you is vague and not specific in nature. Information as defined under Section 2(f) of RTI Act is any material in any form including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private which can be accessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force. The CPIO is not required to compile/collate/create/interpret or to furnish clarification under the ambit of the RTI Act. Accordingly, your application under the RTI Act, 2005 is disposed of..."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated Nil stated as under:-
"..On perusal of records the First Appeal dated 07.1O.2O22 stated to have been sent by the RTI applicant, has not been received in the office of First Appellate Authority or in the office of CPIO whereas a copy of the same has been received from the enclosure to the Second Appeal of the Appellant preferred before the CIC.
4. The matter has been examined and it is seen that the CPIO has suitably replied to the applicant in response to his RTI application dated 09.0g.2022.."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 15.01.2024 has been received from the CPIO, DLA as under:
That the CPIO submits as under: -
(a) That the RTI application of Shri Prakash was partially Transferred to Central Agency Section for Point no. 1 & 4, the Advice Section for Point no. 1(A), 2 & 3 & the Cash sections for Point No. 5. Regarding point no. 1 on 10.08.2022 (Annexure- A)
(b) That Shri Prakash was requested to specify the complete information he wants vide letter dated 10.08.2022 (Annexure-B) Page 3 of 13
(c) That the Central Agency Section vide Reference No. CASE/R/X/22/00003 has returned the RTI application to the Main Secretariat on 22.08.2022 stating that matter pertains to Vigilance Section. The RTI was forwarded to the vigilance Section.
(C) That Shri Prakash had preferred First Appeal with the Appellate Officers of this Department. The FAA, RTI Cell had vide order dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure-1) had disposed the Appeal advising Shri Prakash to approach the concerned Appellate Authorities for consideration of his grievance. The Appellate Authority further advised Shri Prakash to approach the Appellate Authority of Vigilance section as his RTI was transferred to them for Point no. 6 & 7. The Cash Section vide Order dated 7.10.2022 (Annxure-2), had disposed the Appeal upholding the reply of CPIO, Cash Section The CPIO, Advice Section had vide Order dated 8.10.2022 (Annxure-3), had disposed the Appeal stating that the grievance has been substantially addressed by the CPIO, Advice Section
4.That the information available with the RTI Cell is furnished.
Written submission dated 17.01.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Vigilance, DLA as under :
2. In this regard, following is submitted for kind consideration: -
(1) With reference to letter No. R-24/4/2024-RTI dated 15.01.2024 received from RTI Cell, Department of Legal Affairs on the subject mentioned above, it is stated that reply to point no. 6 and 7 of RTI application dated 08.08.2022 has already been provided by the then CPIO to Shri Ashok C. Prakash vide letter dated 23.09.2022 (copy enclosed).
(ii) The copy of letter dated 09.08.2017 sought for in the point no.6 of RTI application dated 08.08.2022 is legible and the authenticated copy is now enclosed.
(iii) In regards to the reply of point no.7 of RTI application dated 08.08.2022, the application was transferred partially to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to furnish information directly to the applicant.
(iv) In regards to reply of point no.1 and 1 (a) of application dated 08.08.2022, the reply was given by CPIO, Advice Section of this department, vide letter dated 22.08.2022 (Pg-27 of the Second Appeal Document) stating that the same is related to Department of Financial Services and the RTI application has been forwarded to Department of Financial Services to provide the requisite information.
(v) The First Appeal preferred against the reply of Point 1(a) has been disposed of by First Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.10.2022 (Pg-77 of the Second Appeal Document).
3. It is submitted that as per the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the basic function of this Department is to, inter-alia, tender advice to Ministries/ Departments of Government of India on Legal Matters.
Page 4 of 13Written submission dated 17.01.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Advice Section, DLA as under :
2. In this regard, it is submitted that the RTI dated 08.08.2022 was disposed vide reply dated 22.08.2022 (copy attached) whereby point nos 1(a) & 2 and point no. 3 were transferred to the concerned CPIOs of the Department of Financial Services, Ministry finance and Ministry of Road & Transport, respectively, for providing the requisite information, if any.
3. The grounds for said transfer of RTI application was that as far as Department of Legal Affairs is concerned, it is a service provider Department which tenders advices in the capacity of a legal adviser to the referring Ministry/Department of the Government of India. The advices, if any are recorded on the original file referred to it by the Administrative Ministry/Department concerned. Thus, the referring Ministry/Department is the custodian of such file and hence the holder of the information, if any. Therefore, the information sought by the applicant may be provided by the Administrative Ministry/Department only.
4. Vide Oder dated 08.10.2022 (copy attached), the First Appellate Authority held as follows: "Since the RTI request of appellant in regard to points 1(A), 2&3 have been transferred to concerned CPIO, his grievances, on this points have been substantially addressed. He is advised to approach the concerned Appellate Authority, if he so desires."
5. In view, of the forgoing, the allegations made by the applicant against the CPIO, Advice section before the CIC in his 2nd appeal are baseless as the CPIO has acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Written submission dated 17.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Central Agency, DLA as under :
1 & 1(a) Information sought by the applicant is related to Vigilance Section, Main Secretariat, Deptt. Of Legal Affairs. Hence RTI Application has been transferred to Main Sectt. Deptt. Of Legal Affairs. Applicant has already been informed.
(b)Information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 and since it relates to personal information about the individual, it cannot be provided. Applicant has been informed accordingly.
4. Information sought in para 4 cannot be provided as proper details about the information sought are not mentioned. Applicant has already been informed accordingly.
2. As the applicant was not satisfied with the reply, he filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority/ Addl. Govt. Advocate Shri Raj Bahadur. The Appellate Authority passed the order regarding the above mentioned related): point-wise information as below (relevant portion (1) "The contention of the Applicant of this case pertains to M/o Law and Justice, Deptt. Of Legal Affairs. The Application regarding point Page 5 of 13 no.1 may be transferred to the Department of Legal Affairs for providing the information sought by the Applicant. By revised order the CPIO informed to the applicant that the application is transferred to the Department of Legal Affairs and further informed that para 1 (b) information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) Act. It is decided that once the information can be provided by the Deptt. Of Legal Affairs, the CPIO need not to make any observation regarding non supply of information."
(3) Regarding Point no.4 "it is decided that the information sought is not ambiguous and the document can be identified and information can be supplied. The applicant has stated that nodal ministry in OP Nahar case is the Ministry of Law and Justice, Deptt. Of Legal Affairs. As such, this application regarding point no. 4 may be transferred to D/o Legal Affairs for providing information."
In view of the above, the applicant has already been informed and nothing has been concealed nor is pending on our part. However, the information sought by the applicant is related to Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice and not pertaining to Central Agency. Therefore Central Agency is not a necessary party as information asked for does not pertain to Central Agency. It is prayed that the name of CPIO, Central Agency may be deleted from the array of parties and notice issued against CPIO, Central Agency may kindly be discharged.
Written submissions dated 18.01.2024, has been received from DRT, Department of Financial Services and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent:1. Ms. Vandana Sharma, SO, DoLA
2. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, US
3. Mr. Prateek Tiwari
4. Kuldeep Mehndiratta, CPIO, DoLA
5. Mr. Amrish Kumar, CPIO, Central Agency
6. Mr. Swaraj, US, MoRTH
7.Mr.RatinderKumar,SO(DRT),Department of Financial Services
8. Ms. Neeti Saini (OSD-Law), Ministry of Finance.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had specifically sought information related to the legal opinion given by department of legal affairs to MoRTH, legal opinion tendered by ASG,AG or other Counsels on the feasibility of challenging certain court orders as mentioned in his RTI Application and also the reference letters written by DOLA or any other ministry/department to the ASG/AG/other counsels for obtaining legal opinion. He stated that his RTI Application has been Page 6 of 13 transferred from one PIO to another without application of mind. He stated that no cogent reply has been furnished by any of the PIOs despite repeated request.
Ms. Vandana Sharma stated that relevant information from official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant. She further stated that as regards the information related to legal opinion tendered by ASG/AG or any other counsels or reference letters written for obtaining the legal opinion, the same could not be traced in their official record since the Appellant has not given any specific details regarding it. She further stated that the information related to legal opinion falls under the ambit of privileged communication between the department and their advocate which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Mr. Ratinder Kumar stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is not available in their official record since the Appellant has not given any specific details regarding it. He further stated that information related to legal opinion falls under the ambit of privileged communication between the department and their advocate which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Mr. Swaraj stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is not available in their official record. He contended that information related to legal opinion falls under the ambit of privileged communication between the department and their advocate which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Subsequent to the hearing of instant Second Appeal, written submission dated 22.01.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that the information from the official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant by concerned PIOs. Commission further observes that information related to legal opinion viz information related to legal opinion tendered by ASG/AG or any other counsels or reference letters written for obtaining the legal opinion falls under the ambit of privileged communication between the department and their advocate which was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 7 of 13
Commission notes that it is a settled position of law that professional communication between an Advocate and his Client is a privileged communication u/s 126 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and exempted from (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
A reference in this regard can be made to decision of Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, LPA 168/2015 & C.M.No.5470/2015 and Union of India vs. R.K. Jain, LPA 199/2015 & C.M.No.6347/2015 dated 03.02.2017 held as under:
"22. Reference in this context may be had to Section 126 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows:- ―126. Professional communications.--No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment: Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure--
(1) Any such communication made in furtherance of any 1[illegal] purpose; 2[illegal] purpose;"
(2) Any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment. It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, 2[pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client. Explanation.--The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased."
23. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court has reiterated that a lawyer acts in a fiduciary capacity with his client. Reference maybe had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497. That was a case where the petitioner in the writ Page 8 of 13 petition had made an application for inspection and re-evaluation of the answer book. While dealing with the contention of the CBSE that the examining body holds the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship, the Supreme Court held as follows:- ―
41. In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to students who participate in an examination, as a government does while governing its citizens or as the present generation does with reference to the future generation while preserving the environment. But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer- books, that come into the custody of the examining body"
24. Similarly in the case of Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. vs. K.D.Ganapathi & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 600 the Supreme Court held as follows:- ―12. At this stage, we may also advert to the nature of relationship between a lawyer and his client, which is solely founded on trust and confidence. A lawyer cannot pass on the confidential information to anyone else. This is so because he is a fiduciary of his client, who reposes trust and confidence in the lawyer. Therefore, he has a duty to fulfil all his obligations towards his client with care and act in good faith. Since the client entrusts the whole obligation of handling legal proceedings to an advocate, he has to act according to Page 9 of 13 the principles of uberrima fides, i.e., the utmost good faith, integrity, fairness and loyalty.
25. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Satyen Bhowmick & Ors., AIR 1981 SCC 917. That was a case in which the accused was charged under the Official Secrets Act. The Magistrate directed the lawyer to produce his notebook. The Magistrate permitted the defence lawyer to take copies of the statement of the witness in order to be in a position to cross-examine the witness. Subsequently, the Magistrate directed the lawyer to produce his notebook to examine that only a summary of the evidence has been taken by the lawyer not in extenso in violation of Section 14. The lawyer claimed privilege under Section 126 of the Act. The Supreme Court held as follows:- '26. xxx xxx
4. That there was absolutely no impropriety on the part of the Magistrate in not taking action against the defence lawyer for his refusal to' show his register because the lawyer had rightly claimed privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act as the register contained instructions given by the client which being privileged could not be disclosed to the Court. On a parity of reasoning we find no impropriety on the conduct of the lawyer in refusing to show the statement of witnesses recorded by the Court in extenso in order to prepare himself for an effective cross-examination of the witnesses. Hence the strictures passed by the High Court on the Magistrate as also on the lawyer of the defence were, in our opinion, totally unwarranted. xxx
26. Similarly, in a recent judgment in the case of Reserve Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 525 the Supreme Court while dealing with the defence of RBI that it was in the fiduciary relationship with the Bank noted as follows:- ―
55. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of the four situations (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, Page 10 of 13 (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer. xxx
57. The term fiduciary relationship has been well discussed by this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v.
Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (supra). In the said decision, their Lordships referred various authorities to ascertain the meaning of the term fiduciary relationship and observed thus: 20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines 'fiduciary relationship' thus:
A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships-such as trustee beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent- principal, and attorney client-require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
Commission deems it expedient to highlight the recent decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 4288/2012 title as Union Of India And Anr Vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal, dated 20.12.2023 wherein the court held that relation between the Solicitor General and the Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary, and hence advice tendered by the Ld. Solicitor General to the Union of India and other various government departments is done in the nature of a fiduciary, and hence exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. Furthermore, it was held that such information was exempted under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act except when there are "weighty reasons" to support that its disclosure is in public interest. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..26. On the perusal of the Rules for engagement of Law Officers, it is seen that it is the duty of the Law Officers to give advice to the Government of India on legal matters. A Law Officer is not allowed to Page 11 of 13 hold brief for any party except with the permission of the Government of India. The Law Officer is also restricted from advising any party against the Government of India or a Public Sector Undertaking.
27. What can be seen from the Rules as well as the judgements of the Supreme Court is that the relationship between the Solicitor General of India and the Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary. The Solicitor General of India is duty bound to work for the benefit of the Union and other departments in good faith, where there exists trust and reliance by the beneficiary upon the Ld. Solicitor General. This Court finds no infirmity with the argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the advice tendered by the Ld. Solicitor General to the Union of India and other various government departments is done in the nature of a fiduciary, and hence the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act has been invoked.
28. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted on 12th October, 2005, with the objective of empowering the citizens of this country to seek information from any public authority, and in turn uphold the principles of a true democracy by keeping the public authorities in check by making them answerable to the general populous. However, as highlighted in the aforementioned discussion, not all information can be disclosed under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Section 8 of the RTI Act is titled "Exemption from disclosure of Information" which suspends the obligation for disclosure of information under various heads under Section 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(j). However, there exists a non-obstante clause in the form of Section 8(2) which allows for disclosure of exempted information under Section 8(1) in the interest of the public at large...
29. It is ad idem that the disclosure of such information as exempted under Section 8 for public interest should also ensure that the disclosure in public interest should outweigh the harm caused to protected interests of a public authority or public functionary, and hence, the Court has to ensure that the disclosure of information (if need be) is done so while establishing a proper balancing act between the right to information of a citizen and the various state functionaries.
30. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act provides that if information which has been exempted from being provided has the effect of bolstering the Page 12 of 13 private decision-making of individuals and public authorities as well as the nourishment of an individual and bolsters accountability on the part of public authorities and it furthers good governance that leads to the growth of a healthy democracy, the same can be provided under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act.
31. However, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act can be pressed only if the conditions therein are satisfied, i.e. if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest. Just by simply stating that it is in public interest to disclose the information would not be sufficient unless weighty reasons are given as to how the information which is exempted from being provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act should be provided and as to how the public interest would outweigh the harm to the protected interest.
32. The Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to what is the public interest that would be subserved so as to invoke the provisions of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. In the absence of any public interest, the information sought for by the Respondent, which is exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act..."
In view of the above observations, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 13 of 13