Goods & Services Tax Network vs. Information Commissioner Cic And Anr

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the CIC was contrary to the legal position. It found that the CIC's direction to provide minutes and resolutions after severing exempt information left the discretion of what constitutes exempt information entirely to the petitioner, which was not the correct approach. The Court relied on the judgment in Reserve Bank of India vs. Kishanlal Mittal, which held that the CIC should have examined the information itself or called upon the petitioner to satisfy the Commission on how and to what extent the information sought included matters of commercial confidence, trade secret, or intellectual property, and then taken a view. The Court also noted that the CIC should consider whether the demand for minutes for the entire period constituted a misuse or abuse of the RTI Act. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIC for fresh consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, Goods & Service Tax Network (GSTN), a private limited company with significant government equity, challenged an order from the Information Commissioner, CIC. Respondent No. 2 had filed an RTI application seeking minutes and resolutions of GSTN's Board of Directors meetings and AGMs from March 28, 2013, onwards. GSTN's CPIO provided information for some points but denied minutes and resolutions, citing confidentiality under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and stating no public interest was established. The Appellate Authority dismissed the first appeal. The CIC, in its impugned order dated October 13, 2016, directed GSTN to provide minutes and resolutions after severing exempt information, within four weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the minutes of the Board of Directors' meetings and resolutions of GSTN are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, as they allegedly contain commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the petitioner and the government, and whether larger public interest warrants disclosure? Petitioner's arguments: GSTN contended that the minutes and resolutions contain confidential information related to its IT infrastructure, commercial activities, strategies, and future plans, which fall under Section 8(1)(d) and would harm its competitive position. They argued that no public interest was established by the applicant. They also cited a judgment suggesting that large quantities of data sought without bona fide interest should not be disclosed. Respondent's arguments: Respondent No. 2 argued that the applicant is not mandated to establish public interest under Section 6 of the RTI Act and that the information sought does not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy under Section 8(1)(j).