Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Complainant has further contended that as per Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, information pertaining to a third party may not be provided, the disclosure of which was in no way related to any public action or interest. The Complainant has argued that neither the members of the Association nor the members of the All India Punjab National Bank Officers' Association General Council were "public" and therefore, no public interest was involved in disclosure of the information. Moreover, despite the objections raised by the Complainant in accordance with Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, the information was provided to Mr. Sham Sunder by the PIO. The Complainant has cited the decision of Mr. A. N. Tiwari, the then Information Commissioner in Ravinder Kumar v. Delhi Police CIC/AT/A/2006/00609 dated 09/02/2007. It was observed therein that information furnished to a public authority by a third party and held by that authority, is not liable to be disclosed unless that third party concurs in the disclosure, or if the public authority chooses to disclose it in public interest regardless of the third party's objection.

Section 11(1) of the RTI Act provides as follows:

"11. Third party information.- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party." (Emphasis added) As per Section 11 of the RTI Act, where the PIO intends to disclose any information, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the PIO shall invite submissions from the third party whether such information shall be disclosed or not. The information or record sought must be either supplied by the third party or must relate to the third party and in both cases, must be treated as confidential by the third party. Section 11(1) of the RTI Act qualifies the nature of the information provided by the third party to the PIO; it does not bring within its purview every information provided by the third party to the PIO. Information provided to the PIO in compliance with law/ regulatory requirements may not come within the purview of 'information, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party'. On receipt of submissions from the third party, Section 11(1) of the RTI Act requires that the PIO shall keep the submissions in view while taking a decision whether the information sought shall be disclosed or not.

Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is triggered once the PIO intends to disclose to the applicant any information/ record which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party. Once Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is applicable, the PIO shall follow the procedure of serving a notice to the third party for seeking objections whether such information shall be disclosed or not. On receipt of the submissions of the third party, the PIO shall keep the submissions in view and then decide whether the information sought shall be disclosed or not. If the PIO does not find any merit in the submissions of the third party, he shall disclose the information sought to the applicant. On the other hand, where the PIO decides that the information sought shall not be disclosed then the basis for denial of information must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only. However (except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law) even where the PIO is of the view that there is possible harm or injury to the interests of the third party, but public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any such harm or injury, he may disclose the information. However, Section 11 does not give the third party a right of veto in giving information. In light of the above arguments, this Commission respectfully disagrees with the observations of the then Information Commissioner in the Ravinder Kumar Case.ntions of the Complainant.