Dishonest Intent Must Be From Inception For Criminality: Supreme Court Quashes Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust FIR 'Cannot Blow Hot And Cold': Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance, Citing Plaintiffs' Inconsistent Conduct & Failure To Prove Continuous Readiness Wife's Residence In Another District For Child's Schooling Cannot Be Sole Ground To Transfer Matrimonial Case: Allahabad High Court Land Acquisition Lapses If Mandatory 80% Compensation Not Paid Before Taking 'Advance Possession' Under Urgency Clause: Bombay High Court Mere Designation As Director Insufficient For Vicarious Liability Under Section 141 NI Act Without Specific Averments: Calcutta High Court Dissatisfaction With Court's Reasoning Or Desire For Elaborate Discussion Not A Ground For Review: Delhi High Court Litigant Pursuing Review Petition Bona Fide Cannot Be Penalised With Limitation Bar For Subsequent Appeal: Delhi High Court Executing Court Not Required To Adjudicate Third-Party Objections Like A Regular Civil Suit, Summary Inquiry Sufficient: Gujarat High Court Karnataka High Court Allows Students To Submit 2017-18 SC Certificates For CET-2026 Registration, Directs KEA To Accommodate Corrections Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Transferred Merely Because Complainant Finds It Difficult To Attend: Kerala High Court No Vested Right For Advocates To Demand Listing Of Cases Ahead Of Older Litigations: Madras High Court Benami Defense Unavailable In Suits Instituted After 1988 Act; Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Altered By Oral Evidence: MP High Court Property Sale During Pendency Of Suit Is Subservient To Final Outcome, Void Decree Must Be Challenged In Competent Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court SC/ST Employees Can Claim Consequential Seniority For Subsequent Promotions Against Unreserved Posts: Telangana High Court Section 37 NDPS Rigours Pale Into Oblivion Against Article 21 During Long Custody; Disclosure Of Co-Accused Is Weak Evidence: Punjab & Haryana HC

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