‘Internal Report’ submitted by the Information Commissioner regarding outsourced staff was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: Report contains allegations leveled against the vendor and counter allegations; No grounds stated to challenge the denial of information

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Copy of the Circulars/O.Ms. issued to Public Authorities by the Law Section of the Commission i.t. Timeline for Transparency Audit in Year 2021 and 2022.

(ii) Copy of the Complete Report submitted by IC (SP) on the issues pertaining to outsourced staff mentioned in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 03.01.2023 at Any other item.”

2. The CPIO (Admn.) replied vide letter dated 17.03.2023 to point no.2 of the RTI Application and the same is reproduced as under:-

“ii: The information is covered 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; of the RTI Act, 2005 being personal information and hence cannot be provided.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO (Admn.), the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 01.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.05.2023 seeking relief on point no.2 of the RTI Application.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the Respondent Mr. Ankit Arora, SO & CPIO (Law); Suman Bala, CPIO & DS to RTI Cell and Mr. Chandan Kumar, SO & CPIO (Admn.) attended the hearing in person.

6. Mr. Ankit Arora, SO & CPIO (Law) submitted with respect to point no.1 of the RTI Application that the desired information as available has been provided to the Appellant and the same is not under contention by the Appellant in the Second Appeal.

Mr. Chandan Kumar, SO & CPIO (Admn.) submitted that the report being sought for is an internal report of the Commission and further relied on his explanation tendered in writing prior to the hearing stating that –

“In regard to point no.(ii) it is mentioned here that the then CPIO had denied the information under section 8 (d) of the RTI Act owing to the fact that it is an internal report which pertained to a contract of supplying manpower on outsourcing basis to the Commission. Further, the report mentions certain practices adopted by the vendor and not fulfilling the terms and conditions of the contract by the vendor and making this report public will adversely affect the commercial confidence and the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the Vendor. Besides the above, presently, the Vendor has also filed a WP in the High Court of Delhi in this matter and it is yet to be taken up by the Court.”

Considering the argument of the averred CPIO to be as insufficient vis-à-vis the emphasis on “internal report” being the cause for denial as also to comprehend the stake of a third-party vendor in the wake of a publicly notified meeting agenda concerning outsourced staff, the bench called upon the CPIO to submit a comprehensive justification for the square denial of such report, at which point, after a brief discussion, it was opined that perusing the relevant report in-camera will serve the ends of justice. Following this, the concerned CPIO presented the report to the bench in a sealed cover.

7. The Commission at the outset dispenses with the role of Mr. Ankit Arora, SO & CPIO (Law) as Respondent in the matter as the instant appeal has not been filed against the reply provided to point no.1 of the RTI Application and is restricted to point no.2 therein.

Now, a perusal of the relevant record reveals that squarely the report concerned an inquiry into allegations of unfair and corrupt practices exercised by a third-party vendor and not the “issues relating to outsourced staff” per se. The report contains exhaustive details of the allegations levelled against the vendor as well as counter allegations involving the stake of certain outsourced employee(s) sans any personal identities. Since, the Appellant has not stated any grounds to challenge the square denial of the information 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; of the RTI Act except for wanting to know a justification for the denial and has not availed of the opportunity of hearing to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the disclosure of the report was suitably exempted, albeit without any justification. Nonetheless, the submissions and the relevant record placed before the Commission at the hearing stage of the second appeal has lent adequate reasons justifying the denial.

8. Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Chandranshu Mehta v. CPIO: Central Information Commission, CIC/SANAK/A/2023/122708/CICOM; Date of Decision: 13.01.2025