Sale Deed Invalid After Revocation of Power of Attorney: Madras High Court Supreme Court Declares WhatsApp Service of Notices Invalid Under Notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS Doctrine of Natural Justice Cannot Be Invoked to Evade Regulatory Compliance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Against Consumer Forum Order Presence of Metallic Foreign Bodies in X-ray Corroborates Firearm Injury" – Patna High Court School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Without Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Double Payment for the Same Claim Is Against Public Policy: Karnatka High Court Remits Case to Commercial Court Land Acquisition | Once the Government Funds an Acquisition, Public Purpose Cannot Be Disputed: Bombay High Court When a Man Acts in the Heat of the Moment, Law Must Recognize the Loss of Self-Control: KERALA HIGH COURT Absence of Bank Seal on Cheque Return Memo Not a Ground for Acquittal: Calcutta High Court Convicts Accused in Cheque Bounce Case Confiscation is Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle in NDPS Case False Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Can Constitute Mental Cruelty Justifying Divorce: Gujarat High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted in Cases of Commercial Drug Trafficking: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Alleged International Drug Cartel Member Magistrate Can Rely on Victim’s Section 164 Statement Over Section 161 Statement: Allahabad High Court Upholds Closure Report in Kidnapping and Rape Case State Liable for Electrocution Injury to Minor Due to Uncovered High-Voltage Wire: J&K and Ladakh High Court Unexplained Delay of 586 Days in Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned as a Matter of Right: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka High Court’s Order A Purchaser During Litigation Cannot Claim Superior Rights Over a Decree-Holder: Supreme Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens Violation of Natural Justice at the Initial Stage Cannot Be Cured at the Appellate Stage: Supreme Court Denial of Fair Hearing Strikes at the Very Core of Justice: Supreme Court Upholds Selection of Shiksha Karmis Merit Alone Must Prevail: Supreme Court Strikes Down Residence-Based Quota in PG Medical Courses Selective Prosecution and Missing Witnesses: Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based on Incomplete Evidence Conviction Cannot Rest on Unreliable Eyewitnesses and Mere Recovery of Weapon: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Need for Legal Recognition of Live-in Relationships:  Rajasthan High Court Calls for Mandatory Registration Judicial Discipline Demands Uniformity: Rajasthan High Court Refers Protection of Married Persons in Live-in Relationships to Special Bench

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

Similar News