UP Land Revenue Act | Map Correction Cannot Be Done By Mechanically Transferring Land To Compensate Deficiency Of Adjoining Plot: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction In Injunction Suit Between Private Parties Not Barred If Title Or Vesting In Panchayat Not In Issue: P&H High Court District Consumer Commission Duty-Bound To Refer Product For Laboratory Analysis When Prayed For; Cannot Dismiss For Want Of Expert Evidence: Punjab State Commission Section 135(3) BNSS | Executive Magistrate Cannot Demand Interim Bond Without Commencing Inquiry; Must Supply Kalandara Material & Follow Madhu Limaye Safeguards: Delhi High Court In Neha Bora Sections 126 & 130 BNSS | Writ Court Cannot Evaluate Sufficiency Of Material At Show-Cause Stage Unless There Is 'Nil Material': Delhi High Court Section 32 Evidence Act | Multiple Dying Declarations Cannot Be Discarded Over Minor Variations If Core Substratum Imputing Fatal Blow Remains Consistent: Allahabad High Court Multiple FIRs Arising From Identical Financial Scheme Can Be Clubbed And Transferred To First FIR Court: Bombay High Court POCSO | Mandating Injury Report Indicating Penetrative Assault For Victim Compensation Violates Article 14, Frustrates Sec 164-A CrPC: Allahabad High Court Section 308 IPC | Premeditation & Requisite Intention Must Be Proved; Single Blow With Stone In Sudden Fight Attracts Section 325 IPC: Delhi High Court Organizing A Book Fair Is A Private Activity And Not A 'Public Function' Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Calcutta High Court Prior Permission From Education Officer Before Issuing Recruitment Advertisement Is Mandatory, Not An Empty Formality: Bombay High Court Order 41 Rule 5 CPC | Tenant Facing Eviction Decree Liable To Pay Mesne Profits At Market Rate Till Delivery Of Possession: Himachal Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In Matrimonial Disputes | Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Cannot Be Treated As Automatic Grounds For Custodial Interrogation: Delhi High Court Section 35 BNSS | Notice For Appearance Under Section 35(3) Is Not A Mandatory Precondition For Arrest Under Section 104 Of The Customs Act: Gujarat High Court Section 58 BNSS | 24-Hour Cap Is An Outer Limit, Not A Licence To Detain Accused Until Morning Court Hours: Kerala High Court Section 106 Evidence Act Cannot Fill Gaps In Circumstantial Chain, Last-Seen Theory Fails Without Proximity To Time Of Death: Karnataka High Court Service Law | Procedural Violation In Domestic Inquiry Not Fatal Unless Delinquent Proves Real Prejudice: Bombay High Court Indian Succession Act | Unequal Disposition Or Exclusion Of Legal Heir Does Not Invalidate Will If Due Execution Proved: Madras High Court Civil Services Rules | Seniority Counts From Initial Appointment If Normal Probation Completed Without Extension; Minor Penalty Cannot Depress Rank: High Court Pre-Arrest Bail Under Section 31 DV Act Cannot Be Denied If Accused Had No Notice Of Protection Order: Kerala High Court Section 50 NDPS Act Applies Only To Personal Search, Inapplicable To Search Of Bag Carried By Accused: Himachal Pradesh High Court Railway Rolling Stock Transfers to IRFC Must Be Classified to Determine Sales Tax Liability Under Delhi Sales Tax Act: Delhi High Court No Contributory Negligence Can Be Attributed To Pillion Rider In Road Accident: Karnataka High Court Nasha Mukti Center Cannot Detain Adult Based Merely On Spouse's Consent Without Medical Mandate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab Land Revenue Act | Revenue Officer Must Strictly Adhere To Approved Mode Of Partition Verbatim: Punjab & Haryana High Court Labour Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Employer For Non-Production Of Employment Records: P&H High Court Closure Of Evidence | Past Conduct Prior To Deposition Irrelevant For Deciding Plea To Adduce Further Evidence: Orissa High Court Supreme Court's Mandate In 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' On Supplying Written Grounds Of Arrest Applies Prospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allegations Of Forceful Sexual Intercourse Raised After 14 Years Of Marriage Without Complaints Cannot Constitute Cruelty Under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act: Telangana High Court Punjab Municipal Act | Municipality Alleging Unauthorised Construction Must Prove Violation By Cogent Evidence, Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Sec 49 Notice: P&H High Court Arbitration Act | Limitation To Challenge Award Commences From Date Certified Copy Is Obtained If Signed Copy Not Delivered Under Section 31(5): Madhya Pradesh High Court Pension Regulations | Voluntary Retirement Weightage Cannot Be Claimed By Employees Retired Prematurely Under Regulation 19(1): Telangana High Court Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely Due To Marital Status; Judicial Declaration Operates Retrospectively: Allahabad High Court Transfer Of Female Employees With Infants | Administrative Exigency Must Yield To Constitutional Right Of Motherhood And Child Welfare: Rajasthan High Court Consumer Protection Act | Summary Jurisdiction Cannot Resolve Complex Factual Disputes Requiring Detailed Evidence & Cross-Examination: Punjab State Consumer Commission

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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