Case Law Details
Rahul Gupta Vs CPIO (Central Information Commission)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has rejected an appeal by Rahul Gupta against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), upholding the stance that public authorities are not required to provide opinions or advice under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Gupta’s request for information concerning the original title deed of a property was originally denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, citing commercial and fiduciary confidentiality. The CIC’s decision has further ramifications on the interpretation of the RTI Act and the duties of public authorities.
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Commission rejected appeal and the decision was made on the basis that a ‘public authority’ is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice’ or `opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion’ or `advice’ to an applicant.
Facts: The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.09.2021 seeking the information pertaining to the original title deed of the property to which CPIO replied that the information sought come under the “Commercial Confidence as per Section 8(1)(d) and Fiduciary information as per Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI. Act, 2005 and is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the ACT.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.10.2021. FAA’s order, dated 02.11.2021, has directed the CPIO to provide the desired information to the appellant.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
