1.

THE RTI APPLICATION FILED IS CORRECT SINCE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT

IS NOT EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 8(1)(d) OF THE ACT.

It is humbly submitted that the information sought by the RTI application is correct since the
information is not covered under section 8(1)(d) of the act. Section 8(1)(d) provides:

8. Exemption from disclosure of information-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this

Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—

(d) 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
information1;

Section 8 deals with the exemptions to right to information. Clause (d) provides that
information such as commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property are
exempted from disclosure. However it is submitted that the application filed by the appellant
is correct since the information sought is not covered under the above section as the
technology is not a trade secret. Moreover information under the clause gets only conditional
exemption i.e. the exemption is subject to the overriding power of the competent authority
under the RTI Act in larger public interest, to direct disclosure of such information.2

1.1 THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE DISCLOSED IN LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST.

It is humbly submitted that the information sought for regarding the Audio-video receiver
technology should be disclosed since it is in the larger public interest. The information
relating to intellectual property and the information available to persons in their fiduciary
relationship referred in clauses (d) and (e) of section 8(1) do not enjoy absolute exemption.
Though exempted, if the competent authority under the Act is satisfied that larger public
interest warrants disclosure of such information, such information will have to be disclosed.
Thus this clause imposes a duty upon public information officer to arrive at a conclusion that
large public interest warrants disclosure of such information3. Even if some confidentiality is
involved, public interest in a matter of the nature of the case warrants disclosure4. The

1
2
The Institute of chartered accountants of india v. shaunak H. Satya AIR 2011 SC 3336.
3
Reliance industires ltd v. Gujarat state information Commission AIR 2007 Guj 203.
4
Ramesh Chand Sai v. National Institute of Science Communication and Information, Appeal No.
CIC/WB/C/2006/00176.
judiciary in various cases has also allowed for disclosure of such information in the larger
public interest5.

One of the objects of democracy is to bring about transparency of information to contain

corruption and bring about accountability. Every citizen has a fundamental right to know
what the government is doing in its name and for this purpose to get information on each and
every decision being taken by the government. Thus right to information is a subject of
fundamental right of freedom to speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of india. In terms of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RTI Act of
2002 it was stated that this law was enacted in order to make the government more
transparent and accountable to the public. It was felt that in the present democratic
framework, free flow of information for citizens and non-Government institutions suffer from
several bottlenecks including the existing legal framework, lack of infrastructure at the grass
root level, and an attitude of secrecy within the Civil Services as a result of the old
framework of rules. The Act was to deal with all such aspects.

The purpose and object was to make the government more transparent and accountable to the
public and to provide freedom to every citizen to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, consistent with public interest, in order to promote openness,
transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. The scheme of the Act contemplates for setting out the
practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority. It was aimed at providing free access to information with
the object of making governance more transparent and accountable.

In considering whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible
harm or injury to the interest of such party, the public information officer will have to
consider the following: i) the objections raised by the party by claiming confidentiality in
respect of the information sought for; ii) whether the information is being sought by the
applicant in larger public interest or to wreak vendetta against the third party and in deciding
that, the profile of the person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked
into; iii) the public information officer while dealing with the information relating to or

5
Mr. Surup Singh Hrya Naik vs State of Maharashtra Through Additional Secretary, General Administration
Deptt. And O-thers, Bombay High Court [Writ Petition No. 1750 of 2007]
supplied by the third party has to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool
in the hands of a busy body to settle a personal score6.

It is submitted that in the present case as well the disclosure of information is necessary in
larger public interest. This is because Audio-Video receivers are used in large number of
electronic equipment and the use of catalytic convertors which are generally used in
automobiles could act as a substitute to the already existing technology. Moreover the use of
ceramic honey comb technology in catalytic convertors could prove to be more efficient in
converting analog signals to digital ones. This can be further used to improve the existing
technology in TVs, projectors etc. However, in the present case a controversy has arisen that
the above technology failed to convert high level analog signals into digital signals. Therefore
it is submitted that in such scenario the information sought for must be disclosed as Mr. Rao,
professor in the IT Department can help in the effectiveness of the invention. The department
through its people can look into the various aspects of the technology and for this reason the
given information has been sought. Moreover it would be better that the technology should be
free from defects before it goes into manufacturing. This can be easily seen from the nature
of information sought. Further it is submitted that no malice can be made out from the
application. Mr Sita Rao, professor in IT department being part of the same institution cannot
be said to have filed the application to settle a personal score. Thus the larger public interest
needs to be taken account by this court and should therefore provide the appellant with the
appropriate relief.

6
High Court of Gujarat v. State Chief Information Commission AIR 2008 Guj 37.