Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

R S Sravan Kumar vs Department Of Space on 25 November, 2019

                               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/DSPCE/A/2018/616027


R S Sravan Kumar                                            ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम


CPIO, Department of Space,                               ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bengaluru


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 08.01.2018             FA     : 20.02.2018               SA     : 07.04.2018

CPIO : 15.02.2018            FAO : 28.03.2018                  Hearing : 25.10.2019


                                   ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Space, Bengaluru seeking information on four points pertaining to international arbitration initiated by Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. including, inter-alia, (i) details of the entire legal team who represented India in the international arbitration initiated by Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) details of the fees paid to the legal team in the aforementioned matter; (iii) details of the damages awarded by the International Tribunal to Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.

whether this amount was paid or not and (iv) whether there was any limitation to the payment of the aforementioned award.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the respondent has wrongly denied the information under Section 8(1)(b) and (h) of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought by him.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Shri R S Sravan Kumar and the respondent Ms Kamala Rajesh, Deputy Secretary, Department of Space, Bengaluru attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant submitted that the information sought for was denied by the respondent under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without any valid justification. In this regard, he contended that the arbitral award has already been declared. Further, Antrix has challenged the said award in various courts (which was widely published in several media outlets), which lifts off the veil of confidentiality. The appellant emphasized that the non-disclosure of details by the respondent pertaining to the legal team and fees paid to them as sought under point nos. 1 and 2 shows complete disregard to transparency as disclosure of expenditure by a public authority is not prohibited under any law in force.

5. The respondent submitted that proceedings of the arbitration tribunal are confidential in nature. Further, the award of tribunal is under judicial scrutiny. Hence, it cannot be said that the arbitrational award has been finalized. Moreover, no larger public interest would be served by the disclosure of the information sought for. He also stated that investigating agencies are investigating the Antrix -Devas contract. This investigation covers broad Page 2 of 5 spectrum of issue commencing from contract negotiations to the arbitral award, therefore, furnishing said information at this stage would impede the process of investigation. In view of this, the disclosure of information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Moreover, other vendors are also envisaging similar arbitration proceedings against Antrix. Further, since damages have been awarded against a Government of India PSU, disclosure would also prejudicially affect the economic interests of the State. Hence, the information sought for is also exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. As regards divulging the fees paid to the legal team who represented India in the aforementioned arbitration proceeding the appellant contended that the same is held by Antrix in a fiduciary capacity. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

6. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent affirmed that the arbitrational award has not yet been finalized. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that the arbitrational award has not yet been finalized. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The Commission notes that Section 42 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 reads as under:

"42A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the arbitrator, the arbitral institution and the parties to the arbitration agreement shall maintain confidentiality of all arbitral proceedings except award where its disclosure is necessary for the purpose of implementation and enforcement of award."

7. In view of the above, in case the arbitrational award has not been finalized then the question of its implementation and enforcement would not arise. In such a case, disclosure of the information sought for vide point nos. 3 and 4 is exempted as per Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019. The Commission, however, observes that the name of the person who represented India in the International Arbitration as well as the total legal fees paid to the India Legal team, which is an expenditure by a public authority, ought to be disclosed. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 22.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Department of Space, Antriksh Bhawan, New Bel Road, Bengaluru-560231

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Department of Space, Antriksh Bhawan, New Bel Road, Bengaluru-560231

3. R S Sravan Kumar Page 5 of 5