Central Information Commission
Raghu S vs Bharat Electronics Ltd. on 13 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137661, CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137662,
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137664, CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137659,
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137660, CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137696,
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137697, CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137698,
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137699, CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137700,
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137701, CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137702.
(Total twelve cases)
RAGHU S .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Sr. DGM(HR), Bharat
Electronics Limited,
Jalahalli Post, Bengaluru - 560013 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.01.2025
Date of Decision : 10.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 16
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137661
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders received by BEL from Indian Airforce as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005, as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137662 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders received by BEL from Indian Army as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File Page 2 of 16 notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005, as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137664 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders released to Foreign Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005, as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137659 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record Page 3 of 16 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders received by BEL from Indian Navy as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005, as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137660 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders received by BEL from Indian Coast Guard as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005, as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA vide its order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 4 of 16CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137696 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 12.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders released to Foreign Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005 in the year of 01-01- 2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137697 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders released to Indian Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File Page 5 of 16 notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005 as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137698 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders released to Indian Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005 in the year of 01-01- 2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137699 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record Page 6 of 16 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of minutes of meeting for release of Purchase Orders released to Foreign Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005 in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137700 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of minutes of meeting for release of Purchase Orders released to Indian Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005 in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 7 of 16CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137701 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders released to Indian Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005, as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/BELBL/A/2023/137702 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2023 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 21.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Certified Copies of Purchase Orders released to Foreign Vendors as compliance of Sec 4 of RTI act 2005 in year wise format, along with File Page 8 of 16 notings with compliance of Sec 10 of RTI Act 2005, as hosted on BEL website in the year of 01-01-2005 to 12-05-2023."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
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 Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri Sundar T, Sr. DGM (HR), Shri Virendra Kumar Mittal, Member Sr. Research Staff and Shri Kishore Bajana, APIO, all present through Video- Conference.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his abovementioned RTI applications and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondents.
Upon being queried by the Commission that as to whether he has received letters dated 16.05.2023 and 10.06.2023 of the Respondent which was sent to him in response to his above-mentioned RTI applications, the Appellant submitted that he has received replies dated 16.05.2023 and 10.03.2023 only after filing of his second appeals in the matters.
Upon being further queried by the Commission, the Appellant stated that the information sought by him is not an exempted information. However, such information should be disclosed by the Respondent Public Authority in compliance to Section 4 of the RTI Act, as it promotes transparency and accountability in the Public Authority.
Written submissions of the Respondents are taken on record and the relevant extracts of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
Written submission in cases:Page 9 of 16
CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137659, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137660, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137661, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137662, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137664, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137696, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137697, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137698, "5. With specific reference to the queries (i) to (iv) above, it is submitted that:
The information harms the competitive position, commercial confidence, trade secrets of a Third party as well as this Public authority. Moreover the disclosure of the information would affect the security and strategic interests of the nation. Further, That the above information sought by the Appellant are of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, the information cannot be provided as exempted under section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act,2005. exempt as per Sec 8 (1) (d) read with 8(1)(a).
6. With specific reference to the queries (v) to (viii) above, it is submitted that:
The appellant is seeking the details of the orders received from Indian Army, Indian Airforce, Indian Navy and Indian Coast Guard. The Purchase Orders comprise of the detailed specification, end use of equipment and the complete project detail. Therefore, disclosure of the information would affect the security and strategic interests of the nation. Hence is exempt under the provisions of Sec 8(1)(a) of RTI Act, 2005.
7. The reply was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 31.05.2023.
8. Further it is humbly submitted that there is no larger public interest in disclosing the information sought by the applicant.
9. That Section 8(1) (a) and (d) of the Right to Information is appended as under;-
Section -8(1)(a):
Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.
Section-8(1)(d) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that large public interest warrant the disclosure of such information.Page 10 of 16
10. The respondent company is a Navratna Public Sector Undertaking and India's foremost Defence electronics company and is engaged in multi-product an multi technology having products in the areas of Radars, Missile Systems, Military Communications, Naval Communications, Electronic Warfare & Avionics, Solar, Satellite integration & Space Electronics etc. The customers of Respondent company are the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard Paramilitary Force of the Country.
11. The Section-8(1)(a) of the Right to information Act defines that the information when disclosed can affect the sovereignty and the integrity of India, the security, scientific or economic interest, strategy of the State and its relation with the foreign country or which leads to any offence is prohibited and cannot be disclosed. The information which will affect the sovereignty and the dignity of the country, should be kept secret as if it will be disclose can cause a lot of harm to the country. The information asked by the appellant is related to the security and the strategic interest of the state so under Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to information Act, 2005 cannot be provided.
12. Under the Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to information Act, 2005, the information cannot be disclosed as it is also related to the commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property as when such information is disclosed it can harm the competitive position of the third party.
13. Since the information sought by the appellant are of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which harm the competitive position of a third party and as such the information cannot be provided as this could prejudicially affect the strategic interests of the nation, the information are exempted under Section8(1)(a) and (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in view of the facts stated above."
Written submission in cases CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137699, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137700, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137701, CIC-BELBL-A-2023-137702.
"5. That the above information sought by the Appellant are of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. Hence, the information cannot be provided as exempted under section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The reply was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 10.06.2023.
6. Further it is humbly submitted that there is no larger public interest in disclosing the information sought by the applicant.Page 11 of 16
7. Additionally, perusal of the First Appeal of the appellant makes it amply clear that his queries stem from arguments which are false and devoid of truth. The appellant raises allegations that this public authority is involved in the Camera Scam involving the jailed AAP Minister of Delhi Government Mr. Satyendra Jain and that Indian representative- of Foreign Vendors are offering to pay the fees of wards of Senior Management who intend to study in Western European Universities or U.S Universities. It may be appreciated that RTI is not the forum for raising such allegations. In case the appellant has any complaints, he may file the same with the appropriate authority(ies).
8. That Section 8(1) (a) and (d) of the Right to Information is appended as under;-
Section -8(1)(a):
Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.
Section-8(1)(d) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that large public interest warrant the disclosure of such information.
9. The respondent company is a Navratna Public Sector Undertaking and India's foremost Defence electronics company and is engaged in multi-product an multi technology having products in the areas of Radars, Missile Systems, Military Communications, Naval Communications, Electronic Warfare & Avionics, Solar, Satellite integration & Space Electronics etc. The customers of Respondent company are the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard Paramilitary Force of the Country.
10. The Section-8(1)(a) of the Right to information Act defines that the information when disclosed can affect the sovereignty and the integrity of India, the security, scientific or economic interest, strategy of the State and its relation with the foreign country or which leads to any offence is prohibited and cannot be disclosed. The information which will affect the sovereignty and the dignity of the country, should be kept secret as if it will be disclose can cause a lot of harm to the country. The information asked by the appellant is related to the security and the strategic interest of the state so under Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to information Act, 2005 cannot be provided.Page 12 of 16
11. Under the Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to information Act,2005, the information cannot be disclosed as it is also related to the commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property as when such information is disclosed it can harm the competitive position of the third party.
12. Since the information sought by the appellant are of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which harm the competitive position of a third party and as such the information cannot be provided as this could prejudicially affect the strategic interests of the nation, the information are exempted under Section8(1)(a) and (d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in view of the facts stated above."
The Respondents while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letters dated 16.05.2023 and 10.06.2023, factual position in the matter has been informed to the Appellant that information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Appellant has informed that letters dated 16.05.2023 and 10.06.2023 were sent to him through ordinary post, which he has received after filing of his second appeals. However, on being pointed out that copy of first appeal filed by him in CIC mentions about CPIO invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny disclosure, the Appellant merely said it was a copy paste error in all the first appeals.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his above-mentioned RTI applications. The Respondent apprised the Commission that factual position in the matter has been informed to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the information sought by the Appellant in his above-mentioned RTI applications are of commercially sensitive nature, therefore, disclosure of which would perhaps not serve any larger public interest as also it could impact the security and integrity of the country.Page 13 of 16
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of contents of Section 8 (1)(a) of RTI Act, which are reproduced below for ready reference -
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen;
xxx
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;"
In the context of non-disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision in Naresh Trehan vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010) decided on 24.11.2014, was referred to, wherein it was 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."
Further, the Respondents in their written submissions have given detailed explanation for invoking Section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. However, the Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of information under the RTI Act.
The Commission further observes that the Appellant on one hand stated that he has not received any reply from the Respondents on his above-mentioned Page 14 of 16 RTI applications and on the other hand, the Appellant in all his first appeals stated that "CPIO has involved Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005". If the replies of the Respondent are not received within time, then as to how he was aware that CPIO has invoked Section 8 in denying the information. Further, neither the Appellant nor the Respondent has uploaded copy of replies dated 16.05.2023 and 10.06.2023 for proper adjudication of the cases. This is a serious lapse on the part of both the parties and they are advised to be cautious in future.
The Commission further observed that the Appellant, during the hearing, had alleged some lapses in the working system of Public Authority that replies to RTI applications were sent to the applicants through ordinary post. In this regard, the Respondents are advised to look into them for their veracity. And if found correct, then, they should send replies by speed post and by e-mail, proof of which should be retained in their records.
However, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply in denial of information under the provisions of 8(1)(a) and (d) of RTI Act and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
The Respondents are directed to share copies of their written submissions along with enclosures, if any, with the Appellant on his email ID and through speed post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The above-mentioned second appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 15 of 16 Copy To:
The FAA Bharat Electronics Limited, Nagavara, Outer Ring, Bengaluru - 560045 Page 16 of 16 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)