Central Information Commission
C H Mahadevan vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 9 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/LICOI/A/2023/119449, CIC/LICOI/A/2023/119916 &
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/148398
C H Mahadevan .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
LIC of India, RTI Department Central
Office 'Yogakshema' Jeevan Bima Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
PIO,
Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman
Point, Mumbai - 400021. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 01.08.2024
Date of Decision : 08.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the subject-
matter is similar in nature and hence are being disposed of through a
common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 18.09.2022
CPIO replied on : 23.12.2022, 16.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 30.12.2022, 01.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.02.2023, 20.11.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.05.2023, 19.12.2022
Page 1 of 17
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/119449
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2022 seeking the following information:
Please furnish the following for the financial years 2007-08 to 2014-15:
1. Income& Expenditure Statement of LIC Employees Pension Fund.
2. Balance Sheet of LIC Employees Pension Fund.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.12.2022 stating as under:
1,2. The applicant is informed that information sought by the applicant is not available as a Record with ER/A section of Personnel Department. Moreover, the information is maintained by F&A Department on behalf of Trustees of Pension Fund. The information is maintained by F&A Department in fiduciary capacity and Personnel Department is the Master Policyholder of Pension scheme. The various cases regarding pension matter are sub-judice before the various High Courts. It is our apprehension that the disclosure of the information can affect the outcome of the case. Hence, F&A Department can not provide the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 at this point of time.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 08.02.2023, held as under.
After going through the application, the CPIO's reply and first appeal by the Appellant, I referred the matter to the concerned department Consequently, I observed as follows.
1. The information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 as the information involves commercial confidence and the appellant is trying to get sensitive and important information from the organization regarding pension scheme prevailing in the Corporation.
2. Various cases regarding pension matters are sub-judice before the various High Courts. It is our apprehension that the disclosure of the information may affect the outcome of the case.
3. These data may be used against this Public Authority in a manner which cannot be foreseen by this Public Authority at this stage.
4. Therefore, this Public Authority would seek to protect its sensitive and important data for any such future uses to avoid any contingent and unseen losses etc. in the future.
5. In view of the above mentioned contentions, it is pertinent to point out that the environment under which the Public Authority operates is very Page 2 of 17 important while deciding about the commercial confidence, intellectual property and other exemption under Sec. 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The environment, especially the macro environment is dynamic and keeps on changing and evolving continuously. In the present highly competitive scenario, the disclosure of data as sought by the appellant on important parameters of financial status of Pension Fund cannot be revealed. It is noteworthy that this Public Authority is not merely having governance related RTI queries but also queries relating to its commercial operations which have to be viewed keeping in mind the competitive scenario in which this Public authority is operating. Lot of changes have occurred since 2019 in the business environment which this Public Authority is facing in view of which the deemed CPIO has decided in the best commercial interest of this Public Authority to keep certain data confidential. The disclosure of such data may hamper the competitive position of this Public Authority adversely. Hence, in view of the changed circumstances the disclosure of data relating to financial statement is exempted under section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
I reiterate that the CPIO has complied with the provisions of RTI Act fully. Upholding the decision of the CPIO, I dispose of the appeal dated 30.12.2022 of Shri C. H. Mahadevan.
CIC/LICOI/A/2023/119916 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.11.2022 seeking the following information:
1. Income& Expenditure Statement of LIC Employees Pension Fund for the financial year 2021-22.
2. Balance Sheet of LIC Employees Pension Fund as at 31/03/2022.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.12.2022 stating as under:
1,2. The applicant is informed that information sought by the applicant is not available as a Record with ER/A section of Personnel Department. Moreover, the information is maintained by F&A Department on behalf of Trustees of Pension Fund. The information is maintained by F&A Department in fiduciary capacity and Personnel Department is the Master Policyholder of Pension scheme. The various cases regarding pension matter are sub-judice before the various High Courts. It is our apprehension that the disclosure of the information can affect the outcome of the case. Hence, F&A Department can not provide the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 at this point of time.Page 3 of 17
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 08.02.2023, held as under.
After going through the application, the CPIO's reply and first appeal by the Appellant, I referred the matter to the concerned department Consequently, I observed as follows.
1. The information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 as the information involves commercial confidence and the appellant is trying to get sensitive and important information from the organization regarding pension scheme prevailing in the Corporation.
2. Various cases regarding pension matters are sub-judice before the various High Courts. It is our apprehension that the disclosure of the information may affect the outcome of the case.
3. These data may be used against this Public Authority in a manner which cannot be foreseen by this Public Authority at this stage.
4. Therefore, this Public Authority would seek to protect its sensitive and important data for any such future uses to avoid any contingent and unseen losses etc. in the future.
5. In view of the above mentioned contentions, it is pertinent to point out that the environment under which the Public Authority operates is very important while deciding about the commercial confidence, intellectual property and other exemption under Sec. 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The environment, especially the macro environment is dynamic and keeps on changing and evolving continuously. In the present highly competitive scenario, the disclosure of data as sought by the appellant on important parameters of financial status of Pension Fund cannot be revealed. It is noteworthy that this Public Authority is not merely having governance related RTI queries but also queries relating to its commercial operations which have to be viewed keeping in mind the competitive scenario in which this Public authority is operating. Lot of changes have occurred since 2019 in the business environment which this Public Authority is facing in view of which the deemed CPIO has decided in the best commercial interest of this Public Authority to keep certain data confidential. The disclosure of such data may hamper the competitive position of this Public Authority adversely. Hence, in view of the changed circumstances the disclosure of data relating to financial statement is exempted under section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
I reiterate that the CPIO has complied with the provisions of RTI Act fully. Upholding the decision of the CPIO, I dispose of the appeal dated 30.12.2022 of Shri C. H. Mahadevan.
Page 4 of 17CIC/LICOI/A/2023/148398 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2023 seeking the following information:
1. Income& Expenditure Statement of LIC Employees Pension Fund for the financial year 2022-23.
2. Balance Sheet of LIC Employees Pension Fund as at 31/03/2022.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.10.2022 stating as under:
The applicant is informed that the information sought is sensitive and important information regarding pension scheme prevailing in this Public Authority, which involves commercial confidence. Also, no larger public interest is quoted by the applicant. The information may be used against this Public Authority in a manner which cannot be foreseen by this Public Authority at this stage. Therefore, this Public Authority would seek to protect its sensitive and important data for any such future uses to avoid any contingent and unseen losses etc in the future. Hence the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 08.02.2023, held as under.
On perusing the RTI application dated 18.09.2023, the CPIO's reply dated 16.10.2023 and First appeal dated 01.11.2023, the appellant is informed as under:
The appellant is informed that the information sought involves commercial confidence as he is seeking sensitive and important information regarding pension scheme prevailing in this Public Authority. Commercial confidence pertains to the practice whereby a Public Authority may withhold information due to the apprehension of perceived harm to commercial interest. The Corporation is responsible for the fair return on money invested by its customers. It is entitled to have its own commercial confidence in order to maintain perpetuity of business to serve its valuable customers which are citizens at large including poor and vulnerable society.
The information sought for is being used by this Public Authority for employee benefits which are precious to this public authority and this public authority would not like to share the data regarding the employees Pension Fund. In the competitive scenario, the disclosure of Page 5 of 17 data as sought by the applicant regarding the Income and Expenditure Statement and Balance Sheet of LIC Employees Pension Fund cannot be revealed. Hence the exemption under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 is sought since the applicant is seeking commercially sensitive information, disclosure of which would harm the protected interest of this public authority and could affect commercial confidence of this public authority. The applicant is also informed that the information sought is maintained by this Public Authority, on the behalf of the Trustees of Pension Fund. The information is held in fiduciary capacity. Hence the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In this context, I quote herein below relevant CIC decision: CIC/LICOI/A/2019/602247BJ, Mr. Girish Mittal V/S CPIO & Chief (RTI) Life Insurance Corporation of India.
"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:
"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."......... Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
The appellant is once again informed that various cases regarding pension matters are sub-judice before various High Courts and disclosure of the information sought may affect the outcome of the case. The information sought by the appellant, if disclosed, may be used against this Public Authority in a manner which cannot be foreseen at this stage.Page 6 of 17
Hence this Public Authority would seek to protect its sensitive and important data for any such future uses to avoid any contingent and unseen losses in future.
With the above information, I dispose of the appeal of Shri CH Mahadevan dated 01.11.2023.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Ms. Madhavi Tari, Secretary (RTI) & CPIO present through Video- Conference.
Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his above- mentioned RTI applications and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information under the RTI Act. The Appellant apprised the Commission that on earlier occasion, the Respondent has furnished similar information but now at this stage, they have denied disclosure of information, which shows mala fide intent of the Respondent in obstructing the information.
Written submissions dated 04.08.2024 of the Appellant are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Notwithstanding the objections raised by her in her detailed written submission in regard to my request for the documents applied for, the fundamental question that arises is, when similar information has been provided for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 by LIC on my previous applications under RTI act 2005 recognising the same under the Act, whether such Information for the years requested for can be abruptly exempted under Sec 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005 without valid justification.
As per Rule 8(2) of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules 1995, power to appoint the trustees is vested in the Board of the Corporation Page 7 of 17 As per Rule 9, the trustees have to carry out the directions of the Board of the Corporation for the proper functioning of the Fund, and The Pension Fund Trust deed is executed by LIC of India and the Fund rules are part of the same. The Fund rules are binding on the members, beneficiaries and the employer, viz Life Insurance Corporation of India. Further, the LIC Employees' Pension Trust created by LIC is governed by The Indian Trusts Act, 1882.
Rule 57 of the Act reads as follows:
"57.Right to inspect and take copies of instrument of trust, accounts, etc. -The beneficiary has a right, as against the trustee and all persons claiming under him with notice of the trust, to inspect and take copies of the instrument of trust, the documents of title relating solely to the trust-property and the vouchers(if any) by which they are supported to, and the cases submitted and opinions taken by the trustee for his guidance in the discharge of his duty."
(underlining mine).
In the light of the above, not only I as beneficiary, but even common citizens including shareholders of LIC are entitled to see the annual accounts of the LIC Pension Fund Trust. I therefore humbly submit that without any iota of doubt, I am entitled to be provided copies of the two statements requested for by me for the financial year 2022-23.
The Executive Director (RTI)/FAA has stated that I am holding the post of Vice President of Retired LIC Class | Officers' Association, Hyderabad which has filed a SLP No 27963 of 2017 in the Supreme Court. Let me hasten to submit that I have filed my request under RTI Act 2005 not as the office bearer of the Association, but as a beneficiary and individual retiree- pensioner of LIC as also a stakeholder in the LIC Employees' Pension Fund. Even though there were 6 SLPs by various petitioners (now converted into Civil Appeals) filed in 2017 and still pending with Supreme Court, I have been provided with the statements of accounts of the Pension Fund for financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21 in response to my RTI applications earlier. Even though part of the information on the Pension Fund is provided in the Annual Reports of LIC, the same is incomplete for my purpose of study as it does not cover the full information available in the Income and Expenditure Statement and the Balance Sheet of the Fund for the year/s in question.
Page 8 of 17In this context I would invite the attention of the Commission to the following remarks in Para 5 the Order dated 23rd November 2016 of the Commission in CIC/SH/A/2015/001705 CIC/SH/A/2015/002289 in Anil Basu vs Central Bank of India, Kolkata "After the decision of 14.3.2006 cited by the Respondents, the Commission has taken a number of decisions to the effect that the mere fact of a matter being sub-judice cannot become the ground of denial of information. In fact, Section of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure only such information as has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court."
In the course of the hearing on 1/8/2024, it was mentioned by the representing Officer of the Respondent that the LIC Pension Fund belongs only to the employees on roll for the reason that for retired employees, annuities have already been purchased by the Trust from the P & GS department of LIC for payment of pensions after retirement. I wish to humbly submit before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that retirees continue to be beneficiaries of the Pension Fund and stakeholders in the Fund. I would like to submit below the reasons as to why the umbilical cord between the Pension Fund and the retiree- pensioner is not snapped after retirement just because annuities are purchased by the Trust from P & GS department for payment of pension on retirement:
1. Practically every retiree opts to receive commutation value of one third of the basic pension along with terminal benefits and such retiree-pensioner receives a monthly pension net of commuted portion of pension for a period of 15 years after which the commuted pension is restored. On restoration of commuted portion of pension, annuities will have to be purchased from the P & GS department again by the Pension Trust for payment of the restored pension to such retiree-pensioners.
2. The pension scheme being index linked in nature, a need arises once every 6 months in February and August every year for payment of increase in Dearness Relief to every retiree as also family pensioner. The need for purchase of additional annuities also arises for the purpose.
3. The pension does not stop with the life time of the retiree-pensioner, but will continue as family pension to spouse as family pensioner on death of retiree even though on reduced scale. For this again, the Pension Trust will have to purchase annuities from the P & GS dept. The retiree-pensioner has genuine concern for the financial security of his/her spouse as family pensioner and is a veritable stakeholder in the Fund.Page 9 of 17
4. There have been occasions in LIC when, as a result of court judgments, eligible pensioners have been paid arrears of pension and revised monthly pension on court orders. For instance, arising out of the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 27/4/2017, there was an order for revision of the Dearness Relief formula for two groups of old retirees and also for upgradation of pension for pensioners drawing minimum pension. As a result, arrears of Dearness Relief amounting to Rs 23.08 cr were paid to 3630 pensioners and their monthly pensions were revised. Similarly, arrears of difference in minimum pension amounting to Rs 7.76 lks were paid to 56 pensioners. These payments were made in 2018. The arrears would have been paid from the Fund directly and annuities would have been purchased from P & GS dept for paying increased monthly pensions in future. Of course, LIC would have made the required additional contributions to the Pension Fund based on the additional liability determined by the actuaries.
5. In the year 2019, one more option for pension was granted for pension for serving employees and retirees who had not opted for pension in the first instance.2420 retirees were admitted into the Pension Scheme subject to some conditions and LIC had made additional contributions to meet the additional liability of pension payable to them on this option granted. The Pension Trust would also have purchased annuities for these retirees.
6. There was also a recent judgment dated 7/2/2024 by the Kerala High Court on a case filed by a section of pensioners. The judgment has been complied with by LIC and about 325 old pensioners aged between 88 yrs and 90 years were expected to be benefited. But it is feared that many among them have passed away due to old age and it is not known how many surviving retiree-
pensioners/family pensioners/legal heirs of deceased retirees have been paid the benefit. Whatever may be their number, arrears of difference in pension would have been paid for the period from 1/11/1993 from the Pension Fund and annuities would have been purchased for payment of revised monthly pension to surviving retirees and family pensioners.
7. On 11/9/2023, the rate of family pension under LIC Pension Rules 1995 was enhanced by a Gazette Notification by the Central Government by increasing Basic Family pension to 30% of last pay dawn by deceased retiree/employee. This enhancement benefited more than 24000 family pensioners. Consequently, this increase also entailed purchase of additional annuities by the LIC Pension Trust from P& GS department of LIC for payment of increased family pension to the family pensioners.
Page 10 of 17From all the instances detailed above it will be appreciated that the retirees may still stand to benefit from the Pension Fund in addition to their pension that commenced after retirement, on some contingencies that may arise in future. Of course, the additional contributions for meeting the additional liabilities warranting purchase of additional annuities will be determined at the end of every financial year through the actuarial valuation of the Pension Fund Thus, the LIC Pension Fund is not a static fund but a dynamic one even though the major part of Fund may relate to the pension optees in service. Interestingly, the total retiree- pensioners and family pensioners numbering 78409 have surpassed the pension optees in service who numbered 68500 as at 31/3/2024.
Thus, the pensioners including family pensioners constitute a significant category of beneficiaries of the LIC Employees' Pension Fund.
Incidentally, in the course of the hearing on 1/8/2024, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner made a mention of the CIC Order dated 18/10/2022 on Second Appeal No CIC/NIACL/A/2021/115428. In its Order, the Commission deemed it fit "to direct the respondent CPIO of the New India Assurance Company to provide a revised reply vide which copy of the Balance Sheet of the New India Assurance Company Employees' Pension Fund as on 31/3/2019 shall be provided to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order". The Officer representing the Respondent under my Appeal was trying to justify the inapplicability of the above decision to my Second Appeal. I may humbly submit in this connection that the LIC (employees) Pension Rules 1995 and the General Insurance (employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 which also covers the employees of the New India Assurance Company Limited were notified on the same date, viz 28/6/1995. The rules relating to the Pension Fund detailed in Chapter III of both these two sets of Pension Rules are almost identical in nature and contents and the decision as per the CIC Order dated 18/10/2022 in the above case of New India Assurance Company is very much applicable in respect of my Second Appeal for furnishing the information, viz the financial statements of the LIC Employees' Pension Fund for the year 2022-23 as requested for by me"
The Respondent while defending their cases inter alia submitted that they have categorically informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant.
Written submissions dated 05.08.2024 are reproduced hereinbelow:Page 11 of 17
"The appellant had given Reference of CIC decision dated 18.10.2022 under File No CIC/NIACL/A/2021/115428 of Mr. M B Chandran vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, wherein, Hon'ble CIC had given decision " to provide copy of Balance Sheet of the New India Assurance Co. Employees' Pension Fund as on 31.03.2019".
It is submitted that in LIC of India, the annuity is purchased by the Trust for payment of pension in case of an employee after his retirement. Therefore, that retired employee is no longer a direct beneficiary under the fund, as annuity is already purchased for him/ her.
The appellant has raised concern about two issues; one is family pension after the demise of the employee and the second is more than expected rise in Dearness Relief payable to pensioners. The Corporation carries out actuarial valuation of the fund through Actuaries to take care of these two contingencies. Based on the report of the Actuaries, the contingent liability is provided in the books of accounts of the Corporation, which is present in the Annual Report of the Public Authority. The information provided in the Annual Report is more exhaustive, link for which has already been provided to the appellant.
It is submitted to Hon'ble CIC that this Public Authority recognises the right of pensioners, which is evident from the following information placed by the Public Authority in the public domain:
1. Retired Employees Portal is placed in Public Domain on the internet website of this Public Authority, from where pensioners can get all the information pertaining to their Individual accounts.
2. 2. The financials of the LIC Employees Pension Fund, as mandated by Law, are displayed by the Public Authority in its Annual Report, which is placed in the public domain on its internet website, www.licindia.in. For instance, the Information pertaining to the year 2023-24 is available on page no. 710 to 715 of the Annual Report. The path for the Annual Report is as follows:
www.licindia.in Upper Links Investor Relations Financial Details → Annual Reports 2023-2024 or by copying following link under URL:
https://licindia.in/documents/20121/92529/LIC+of+India_AR_FY+2023_24.pdf/ 6c557500- d9db-bae6-429c-6bb3ca0082d8?t=1722077796687 * All the information regarding LIC Employees' Pension Fund, which is mandatory for disclosure for its shareholders and stakeholders as per the IRDAI Page 12 of 17 and SEBI guidelines have already been displayed by this Public Authority in the public domain on the Internet website of the Public Authority, www.licindia.in. This Public Authority is fully compliant with the regulatory provisions.
This includes exhaustive report on the Annual Financial Risk Assessment of the Employees Pension Fund by technical experts (Actuary). A sample Report for the latest Financial Year 2023-24 published in Annual Report is attached herewith for your kind perusal.
Hence it is reiterated that adequate information addressing the concerns of a pensioner regarding financial position of pension fund has been made available by this Public Authority.
In spite of making available the relevant financials, if a pensioner is asking for financial statements, that too for a period of about 10 years, (2008-2015 and 2021 to 2022), under RTI, a reasonable suspicion about the purpose/ Intention arises.
It is brought to the notice of Hon'ble Commission that the appellant is holding the post of Vice President of Retired LIC Class I Officers' Association, Hyderabad. The said association has filed the SLP bearing No.27963 of 2017 against this Public Authority regarding pension matters and the case is sub- judice, which is not mentioned by the Appellant in his RTI applications, First Appeals and Second Appeals, This fact further makes this Public Authority more apprehensive about the probable use of the 10 years Financial Statements (14 year old records).
Hence, it is submitted that the submission of the appellant that he requires the information sought only for the purpose of his personal record and study does not appear justified.
In the past, two statements for Financial Year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 were given to the Appellant by this Public Authority under RTI in view of transparency and believing that those were relevant information for a pensioner. However, after that, multiple applications were received from different RTI applicants (requesting for same2 information for multiple years); the matter was probed into and it was found that various associations of pensioners have filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of upgradation of pension against this Public Authority as well as Union of India, which the Finance and Accounts Department of Central Office, who prepares the Financial Statements would not have known as the Page 13 of 17 Legal matters are being dealt with by another department L.c., Legal Department of the Corporation that too at various Divisional and Zonal Offices.
Hence the objection of the Appellant that 'similar statements were provided in the past hence there should not be any issue in providing them now' does not hold good.
This Public Authority is a commercial organisation with several stakeholders like employees, policyholders, shareholders etc. and to safeguard their interests, it is very Important to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information.
In the light of the above submission, we humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to consider the cases favourably and to dismiss summarily the second appeals dated 27.03.2023 and 14.12.2023 filed by Shri C H Mahadevan"
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant, being a pensioner and beneficiary of the fund including for his family in the event of his own demise, has direct stake in the funds and its performance. He has sought specific information regarding copy of Income & Expenditure Statement of LIC Employees Pension Fund and copy of Balance Sheet of LIC Employees' Pension Fund of different years as mentioned in the RTI applications. But the Respondent denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (h) of the RTI Act. Further, the Respondent has also taken the defense that the matter is sub-judice before the judicial Court.
The plea for denial of information by the CPIO that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Court without substantiating the same under any of the exemption clause under RTI Act was completely inappropriate.
In this context attention of the CPIO is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 can be cited:Page 14 of 17
"5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
Similarly, this Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts in CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769 dated 28.11.2016 had held as under:
"At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for subjudice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court."
The Commission further noted that the Respondent on one hand submitted that on earlier occasion similar information was provided to the Appellant for a period of two years and on the other hand had claimed exemption from disclosing the information in the instant cases. The Respondent in their written submissions claimed that after receipt of multiple RTI applications received from different RTI applicants, the matter was probed and it was found that various associations of pensioners have filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the issue of upgradation of pension. The Commission is of the opinion that such grounds cannot be a shelter to the Respondent Public Authority in denying the information to the RTI applicants who have direct stake in the matter under the RTI Act and thus the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
It is an admitted fact that the Appellant is a beneficiary and individual retiree pensioner of LIC and also a stakeholder in the LIC Employees' Pension Fund and he is entitled to know where his pension is invested to assure himself and be assured for the family pension post his demise. Further, he merely wishes to seek this information just to be assured that LIC Employees' Pension Fund is managed properly.
Further, the contention of the Respondent that the matter is sub-judice before judicial court is not tenable in the present case. It was brought to the notice that the Commission in its earlier decision dated CIC/NIACL/A/2021/115428 Page 15 of 17 dated 18.10.2022, similar information was directed to be provided to the RTI applicant.
Therefore, considering the above claims of the parties and to maintain the balance between transparency and commercial confidential aspect, the Commission directs the Respondent to facilitate inspection of available and relevant records related to the information sought in the RTI applications as mentioned above to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically and in writing well in advance.
During the course of inspection, the Appellant is at the liberty to make notes from the documents inspected in the office of the Respondent Public Authority. He may not be allowed to take copies of the said record in view of the submissions made by the Respondent in the preceding paragraphs.
The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The above-mentioned second appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, LIC of India, RTI Department Central Office 'Yogakshema' Jeevan Bima Marg Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021.Page 16 of 17
Copy To:
The FAA, Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021.Page 17 of 17
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)