Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge to Section 8(1) (d) and (e) of RTI Act
THE Petitioner is Reliance Industries and they have filed a writ in the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Section 8 of the RTI Act details the information, which is exempt from disclosure. Clauses (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) thereof exempts from disclosure:
(i) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party; and,
(ii) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship.
However, both the above exemptions are subject to:
“unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information”.
The grouse of the petitioner is more against the proviso than the main sub-sections.
It is contended, that the 'proviso' virtually takes away the exemption provided for in Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) and is too widely worded leaving unguided discretion in the Competent Authority to override the exemption by citing public interest, without defining “larger public interest” and is thus arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is alternatively contended that the said 'proviso' may be required to be “read down”.
The High Court observed, “The 'proviso' to Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) which carves out an exception to the information exempt from disclosure, is one of the facets of such harmonization of conflicting interest. While information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property or made available to Public Authority in fiduciary relation, has in recognition of the principle of “preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information” been exempted from disclosure, but such exemption is not available when “larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information”. It thus cannot be said that the proviso taketh away what has been given under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e).”
And rejected the writ petition.