Stake of Mr. Kalanidhi Maran in Sun TV to be disclosed
2 Feb, 2012Background
The appellant sought to know the percentage of stake that a broadcaster can own in a DTH Venture as per the government regulations; the percentage of stake that Mr. Kalanidhi Maran owns in Sun Direct; and the names of other stake holders and shareholding pattern in Sun Direct. The PIO provided the eligibility criteria laid down in the DTH guidelines giving the details of the company, total foreign equity, FDI component, quantum represented by the paid up equity shares, etc. He refused information about the percentage of stake that Mr. Kalanidhi Maran owns in Sun Direct holding it as commercial information. Regarding the shareholding pattern, he declined information as commercial while suggesting obtaining from M/s Sun Direct. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) concurred with the view of the PIO.
View of CIC
The Commission noted that the PIO and FAA have refused to give the information without mentioning any exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It appeared to the Commission that the PIO or FAA were unaware of the exemption when they refused to give the information. The Commission warned them not to deny information unless they can justify the exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and gave an opportunity to the Third Party “Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd.” to give its arguments how the information sought by the Appellant is exempt from disclosure.
The Third Party claimed that information regarding shareholding pattern is in the nature of commercial confidence-protected under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act and disclosure of the same would harm the commercial interest of the Third Party. When the Commission asked the third party whether such information can be accessed from the Registrar of Companies (ROC), he stated that it could not be accessed. The Appellant submitted that he required the information from an authentic source for the purposes of publication and that in itself qualified as being in public interest-under Section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. of the RTI Act.
The Commission referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tata Motors Limited & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1773/2008 where the Calcutta High Court, while discussing Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act observed -“The term commercial confidence has not been defined as such. But the word commercial is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as something “pertaining to, or engaged in commerce. Interested in financial rather than artistry; likely to make a profit; regarded as a mere matter of business”. The Commission observed that the term ‘commercial confidence’ comprises of commercial, business or financial information, which entities keep as confidential, or do not display or bring to the knowledge of the public, mostly with an intention to maintain an advantage over its competitors. The Commission did not agree with the Third Party’s contention that details of shareholding pattern are in the nature of ‘commercial confidence’ as the list of members of a company, shares issued, etc are required to be furnished (usually by way of annual returns) to the ROC in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. This information is available on the ROC website on payment of the prescribed fees and therefore, the Commission ruled that such information cannot be treated as confidential because it is accessible to the public. The Commission further noted that the third Party has not given any explanation to the Bench how disclosure of its shareholding details would harm its competitive position. The Commission took the view that disclosure of the shareholding pattern of Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd cannot put it at a disadvantage from its competitors and cannot be held as exempt under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
The Commission further observed that the details regarding shareholders of the Third Party may be ‘personal’ information to the extent it relates to an individual shareholder only. It is also likely that such information may have been given to the Respondent- public authority during the course of a public activity. However, disclosure of shareholding details of the Third Party cannot be considered as an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of individual shareholders or of the Third Party itself and cannot be held as exempt under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Vinod K. Jose v. M/o Information and Broadcasting (Third party - Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd.) in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002664/17150
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/52
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission