Central Information Commission
Piyush Avinash Luktuke vs Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of ... on 9 May, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/ICSOI/A/2020/695970
In the matter of
Piyush Avinash Luktuke
... Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
The Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI)
3rd Floor, C-36, Sector -62 Rd, C- Block,
Phase -2, Industrial Area, Sector -62, Noida - 201 301
2. Central Public Information Officer
ICSI House, 22 Institutional Area,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 05/07/2020 CPIO replied on : 12/08/2020 First appeal filed on : 16/08/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 14/09/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 12/12/2020 Date of Hearing : 04/05/2022 Date of Decision : 04/05/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Sai Dutta Mishra, Director and CPIO; Advocate Sandeep Chatterjee; Advocate Anurag Mehta; present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information
1. Number of registered members of ICSI who are required to undergo/ complete (Programme Credit Hours) PCH for the year 2017-2020 till 06.07.2020.1
2. Number of Registered Members of ICSI who have completed PCH (Programme Credit Hours) for the block of 2017-2020 till 06.07.2020.
3. Extracts of Minutes of Council Meeting of ICSI at which ICSI (Continuous Professional Education) Guidelines, 2019, were approved.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided to the appellant. He further reiterated the written submissions dated 02.05.2022, in which he submitted that the appellant requested for five documents/details. He further submitted that three points were rejected by the CPIO as the same were not falling under the definition of "information" as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, information on two points were rejected as per Council Resolution dated 14th March 2014 as every minutes of meetings of the Council of ICSI contain information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, and that the information also contains information of fiduciary relationship. Being aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred a first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 14.09.2020 dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the FAA the appellant filed this second appeal. He further pointed out that as per para 5 and 6 of the second appeal, it is clear that the appellant has no grievance for not providing any details on points no. 1,2 and 4 of the RTI application. The only grievance the appellant has is in respect of points no. 3 and 5 of the RTI application. He further submitted that the contention of the appellant is that the basis of denial by the CPIO was not under any sections or under exempted categories under the RTI Act, but was based on restriction levied by the Council, without providing any copy of resolution passed thereof.
He also submitted that the legal rationale is the Council Resolution dated 14.03.2014; he further pointed out that this resolution is of utmost importance as for efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of the same is vital.
He also submitted that every minutes of meetings of the Council of Institute of Company Secretaries of India contain information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, including but not limited to students and members information/data, examination details, academic 2 details, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position; and that the information also contains information of fiduciary relationship. Needless to say, the competent authorities under the RTI Act, in this case ICSI, will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests.
He further submitted that the minutes are bound to contain some confidential information relating to the financial aspects, or other aspects, as it may be. The disclosure of such information is likely to harm the interest of the entity. Furthermore, he submitted that the appellant has failed to show that larger public interest warrants disclosure of the information sought by the appellant. He also submitted that the minutes contain issues relating to ICSI's policies, financial activities, strategies, future plans, and administrative aspects, which if disclosed to everyone would harm the institute as a whole. Otherwise also it is a settled law that where an applicant is seeking a large quantity of data and information and has not indicated any bonafide interest in seeking such information, the information should invariably outweigh the cost of providing it and it should not be done.
Nevertheless, he also submitted that the application seeking information as framed by the appellant seems to seek indiscriminate and impractical demands for disclosure of all and sundry information. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497.
He also relied on a similar case i.e Appeal no. CIC/AT/A/2010/001031 in the matter of Kishanlal Mittal vs CPIO SBI, Mumbai. In the said case, the appellant filed an RTI application seeking information such as details of minutes of meeting of board of directors of SBI from April, 2008 onwards. The CPIO has expressed inability to provide the information on the ground that this was exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The FAA agreed with the decision of the CPIO. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA. He summed up stating that the appellant's averment is baseless regarding "important" and "unimportant" or "non-confidential" categories are concerned, he submitted that in the press release few details were made public as the same did not contain any sensitive information of ICSI. However, that does not mean that the other information that were not released in public are un-important or non-confidential as alleged by the appellant. On the other hand, it established the fact that information that has not been made public is sensitive information and exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
3Observations:
The Commission could not examine the order in case no. CIC/AT/A/2010/001031 in the matter of Kishanlal Mittal vs CPIO SBI, Mumbai as the copy of the same was not enclosed. Be that as it may, the respondent had relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court dated 18.08.2020 in the matter of Goods & Service Tax Network vs Information Commissioner, CIC & Anr, W.P (C) NO. 11399/2016, wherein the learned counsel relied on paras 17 and 18, para 17 and 18 which are extracted below:
"17. In my opinion the minutes of the board meetings are bound to contain some confidential information relating to the commercial aspects of the company, the technological aspects of the technology and other IT network that it is providing to various governments/government agencies. It would include information of commercial confidence, information which can be termed to be trade secrets, information which can be termed to be intellectual property regarding the various IT technologies used. Disclosure of such information is likely to harm the interest of the petitioner. Respondent has failed to show that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. This aspect has not been noted or stated in the impugned order.
18. In the above context, reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497. In the said judgment, the Court held that indiscriminate and impractical demands under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information unrelated to transparency and accountability would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in executive getting bogged down with non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as follows:-
"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public 4 authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising "information furnishing", at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
In my opinion, the above judgment may apply to the facts of this case. The application for information as framed seems to seek indiscriminate and impractical demands for disclosure of all and sundry information. However, a firm conclusion cannot be reached as full details are not on record."
The above case was not related to minutes of an educational institution and also the same was remanded back to CIC for decision. Be that as it may, information sought was not in the opinion of the Commission indiscriminate and voluminous.
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 12.08.2020 provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. In respect of points no. 1&2 of the RTI application, the CPIO replied that the information sought is dynamic in nature and calculated as per the parameters given by the member at the time of payment of fees. Therefore, the requisite information sought is not being maintained in the form/content as desired, hence stands exempted u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. In respect of point no. 4 the CPIO replied that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and therefore, does not fall within the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. In respect of points no. 3 & 5 the CPIO replied that as per Council Resolution, Agenda & Minutes of the Committees and the Board of the Council and the Institute shall not be provided under the RTI Act. The CPIO was given an opportunity to explain the legality of such resolution which contravenes the provisions of the RTI Act, to which he could not provide a plausible explanation.
The FAA vide order dated 14.09.2020 had held that most of the extracts of minutes of the meetings of the ICSI contain information which are relating to sensitive matters i.e. students' and members' information/data, examinations, academics, Company Secretaries Act, 1980, etc. This information included commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party and the disclosure of such information is not in larger public interest. Therefore, It is strongly 5 urged that all this information squarely falls within the ambit of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and there is such information which is maintained in the fiduciary relationship; the disclosure of such information is also not in larger public interest as per the Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, as decided by the higher authorities of the ICSI, there are some of the extracts of the minutes of the meetings the ICSI which have already been uploaded on the website of the ICSI for which there were no issue to upload for public. The FAA Office has carefully considered the application, the response, the appeal and the records made available and finds that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. The FAA Office concurred with the submission of the CPIO. The respondent is directed to provide the relevant link where the extract of the meetings are uploaded on the website of the Institute to the appellant within 07 days from the date of issue of the order. The appellant claimed that the website contains only extracts of important decisions not extract of minutes. The CPIO contended that on 18.09.2020 the FAA's order was complied with, however, he also agreed the extracts of minutes are not available on the website.
The FAA's claim of exemption under Sec 8(1)(d) and (e) appears to be an afterthought, moreover, the recent written submissions of the CPIO also lacks reasoning for treating the minutes as confidential and exempted and no exemption clause was justifiably invoked.
Decision:
As information on points no. 3 and 5 cannot be denied without any exemption clause being relied upon and also the exemption clause cannot be invoked without any reasoning, the Commission finds the denial of information not acceptable and maintainable. The CPIO shall apply Sec 10 of the RTI Act and sever the financial details (if any) and provide the copies of the minutes as sought for in points no. 3 & 5 of the RTI application, to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 7