138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

RTI Act Reserved for Citizens of India, Non-Citizens Cannot Invoke This Right: CIC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld the denial of an RTI application filed by Kewal Krishan Nangia, representing Regeneron Pharmaceutical Inc. and Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, seeking information about the import/export of the drug Aflibercept/Eylea. The CIC concluded that the application was invalid as it was filed on behalf of foreign entities, which are not entitled to information under the RTI Act, 2005.

The appellant, Kewal Krishan Nangia, filed an RTI application on July 30, 2022, seeking details about the import/export of Aflibercept/Eylea by Cliantha Research Limited. The application aimed to obtain shipment documents, including bills of lading and product descriptions. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) denied the request on August 12, 2022, under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, claiming the information pertained to a third party. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld this decision on December 21, 2022. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the CIC.

The CIC highlighted that the RTI Act, 2005, provides information rights exclusively to Indian citizens. The appellant filed the application as an authorized representative of two foreign companies, which disqualified the request. The CIC referred to Section 3 of the RTI Act, which specifies that only citizens have the right to information.

The RTI Act is explicit in its provision that only citizens of India are entitled to information. Foreign entities do not qualify under this act," stated Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari.

The Commission also addressed the nature of the information requested, deeming it commercially sensitive. It determined that the appellant's interest seemed to align more with competitive monitoring than public interest. The CIC emphasized that the requested information included trade secrets and confidential commercial data, protected under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

"The information sought pertains to commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of Cliantha Research Limited," the judgment noted.

The appellant argued that disclosing the information was in the public interest, especially concerning public health and safety. However, the CIC found no substantial evidence that public interest outweighed the harm disclosure would cause to the third party.

The CIC relied on the legal principle that the RTI Act is intended to promote transparency while protecting sensitive commercial information. It reiterated the necessity of a balance between the right to information and the protection of trade secrets. The judgment cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. vs. State of Manipur & Anr., which clarified that the right to information is reserved for citizens of India.

"The right to information under Section 3 of the RTI Act is reserved for citizens of India. Non-citizens, including foreign entities, cannot invoke this right," the judgment stated. Furthermore, it was observed, "The information sought involves commercial confidence and trade secrets, disclosure of which is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."

The CIC's decision underscores the limitations of the RTI Act concerning requests filed on behalf of foreign entities. It emphasizes the need for adherence to the statutory provisions of the act, particularly regarding the eligibility of applicants and the protection of commercially sensitive information. This ruling sets a precedent in delineating the scope of the RTI Act, reinforcing that it serves the interests of Indian citizens while safeguarding the confidential data of businesses.

 

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024

Kewal Krishan Nangia vs. PIO, Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex

Latest Legal News