Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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