Central Information Commission (CIC): CIC held that the relationship between the respondent and its Management Council is not a fiduciary relationship and hence information concerning the meetings of its Management Council cannot be withheld under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. CIC further directed the respondent to provide information in relation to the decision of the Management Council regarding enhancement in retirement age of respondent’s employees to the appellant. Earlier, appellant had sought the details of the meetings regarding the matter from respondent’s Management Council but was denied information on the ground that the meetings/minutes of the respondent’s
Management Council are not open to public and are not accessible to public. Before CIC, respondent contended that it holds the information concerning meetings of their Management Council in a fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest was involved because the appellant was interested in the information in relation to his own retirement from the organization. The said contention of respondent was however, rejected by the CIC and it was held that the decision of the respondent's Management Council regarding enhancement in retirement age of its employees is of interest not only to the Appellant, but to all the employees of the organization. (Surinder Kumar v. Semi-Conductor Laboratory, File No. CIC/SS/C/2013/900558/SH, decided on January 15, 2014)1
Read full article here;1
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SS/C/2013/900558/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing :
Date of decision :
15th January 2014
15th January 2014
Name of the Appellant
:
Shri Surinder Kumar
H. No. HB 130, Phase 1,
SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab 160055
Name of the Public
Authority
:
Central Public Information Officer,
SEMIConductor Laboratory,
Department of Space, Sector 72,
SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab 160071
The Appellant was present in the NIC Studio at Chandigarh.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Rajender Saxena, CPIO was present in the NIC Studio
Chandigarh.
Information Commissioner :
Shri Sharat Sabharwal
Although this has been registered as a Complaint, we are treating it as an appeal
as in his letter dated 24.10.2013, vide which he approached the CIC, Shri Surinder Kumar
has described it as “An Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
2.
The Appellant filed an application with the Assistant Public Information Officer
(APIO), SemiConductor Laboratory (SCL), Mohali on 12.8.2013 asking for the following
information:
“I. Agenda of SCL Management Council meeting held on November 3,2012.
II. Minutes of meeting of SCL Management Council held on November 3, 2012
regarding the enhancement in retirement age of SCL employees.
III. Resolution adopted by SCL Management Council in its meeting held on
November 3, 2012 regarding enhancement in retirement age of SCL
employees.”
3.
The CPIO of SCL responded to the RTI query on 17.8.2013 stating the following:
“Para 1 to 3: As per the voluntary disclosure made under section 4 (1) (b) (viii) of
the RTI Act, 2005 by SCL on its website, the composition of the SCL Management
Council as mentioned therein has been disclosed and the meetings / minutes of the
SCL Management Council are not open to public and are not accessible to public.
Hence, the information sought which pertains to agenda / minutes of SCL
Management Council is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI
Act, 2005.”
4.
Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First
Appellate Authority (FAA) on 22.8.2013. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO vide
his order dated 15.10.2013. Not satisfied with the order of the FAA, the Appellant has
approached the Central Information Commission by filing an appeal under section 19 of
the RTI Act.
5.
We have heard and carefully considered the submissions of the Respondents and
the Appellant. The Respondents reiterated the reply given by them to the Appellant vide
the CPIO’s letter dated 17.8.2013. They stated that the SCL holds the information
concerning meetings of their Management Council in a fiduciary capacity. They further
stated that no larger public interest was involved because the Appellant was interested in
the information in relation to his own retirement from the SCL. The Respondents also
referred to the sensitive nature of the work of SCL. On the other hand, the Appellant
submitted that information could not be denied to him in terms of section 8 (1) (e) of the
RTI Act. He argued that the matter was of larger public interest in that the decision
concerning enhancement of retirement age affected all employees of the SCL. He also
referred to the Commission’s decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/004091 dated 22.6.2012 which
had directed the CPIO to disclose the information sought in that case from the SCL.
However, it is noticed that in the above mentioned case, the SCL had denied information
under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, without mentioning any sub section of section 8 (1).
However, in the matter now under consideration before the Commission, the Respondents
have specifically invoked section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act to deny information.
6.
Coming to the arguments advanced by the Respondents, it is stated in the CPIO’s
reply dated 17.8.2013 that as per the voluntary disclosure made under section 4 (1) (b)
(viii) of the RTI Act by SCL on its website, the composition of the SCL Management
Council has been disclosed and the meetings / minutes of the said Council are not open
to public and are not accessible to public. However, the Commission notes that in stating
the above, the website of SCL does not refer to any section of the RTI Act under which
the information is exempt and thus, being denied. The CPIO’s reply further states that the
information sought, which pertains to agenda / minutes of the SCL Management Council
is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Sub section (e) of
section 8 (1) of the RTI Act provides for withholding of “information available to a person in
his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public
interest warrants the disclosure of such information.” In the case of Central Board of
Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has made the following observation:
“......the words “information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship” are used in
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act in its normal and wellrecognized sense, that is, to refer to
persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or
beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the
fiduciary—a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference
to a minor / physically infirm / mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a
lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference
to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another
partner, a Director of a company with reference to a shareholder, an executor with reference
to a legatee, a Receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to
the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to
business dealings / transaction of the employer.”
7.
In view of the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relationship
between the SCL and its Management Council is clearly not a fiduciary relationship; nor
does the SCL hold information concerning the meetings of its Management Council in a
fiduciary capacity. Therefore, information cannot be withheld under section 8 (1) (e) of the
RTI Act.
8.
As for the issue of larger public interest, we note that the decision of the SCL
Management Council regarding enhancement in retirement age of SCL employees is of
interest not only to the Appellant, but to all the employees of the organization. Moreover,
since as stated above, the ground of fiduciary relationship to withhold information does
not apply in this case, consideration of whether the larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information is not relevant. With regard to the reference of the
Respondents to the sensitive nature of work of the SCL, it is noticed that the Appellant
has sought information only in relation to the decision of the Management Council
regarding enhancement in retirement age of SCL employees.
9.
In view of the forgoing, the CPIO is directed to provide the following information to
the Appellant within three weeks from the receipt of this order:
Portions of agenda of SCL Management Council Meeting held on
November 3, 2012 and Minutes of this meeting, in so far as these relate to the
issue of enhancement in retirement age of SCL employees.
(a)
Resolution adopted by SCL Management Council in its meeting held on
November 3, 2012 regarding enhancement in retirement age of SCL employees.
(b)
10. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application
and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
No comments:
Post a Comment