An expert committee report was denied by the PIO on the grounds that it was held in a fiduciary capacity and hence exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act. This contention was rejected by the CIC. This is the 13th in a series of important judgements given by Shailesh Gandhi, former CIC that can be used or quoted in an RTI application1
| CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION |
|
Room No. 415, 4thFloor, Block IV, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110067. Tel: + 91 11 26161796 Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00213/1566 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00213 |
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
| Appellant: |
Mr. R. Sridharan, B-301, Kalpak Gulistan, |
| Respondent 1: |
Mr. Vinod Kumar, Registrar & PIO, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India Council of Architecture, India Habitat Centre, Core-6A, IstFloor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. |
|
RTI application filed on : 10/07/2008 PIO replied : 07/08/2008 |
|
|
First appeal filed on : 05/09/2008 |
The appellant had asked in RTI application for an attested complete copy of the said Expert Committee’s report/recommendations.
Detail of required information:-
|
S. No. |
Information Sought. |
The PIO replied. |
|
A. |
Council of Architecture may kindly refer to enclosed copy of their letter no. CA- 5/Academic dated 18/01/2008 addressed to members of the Expert Committee for their visit in the context of evaluation of the proposal of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIU) to start the 5 year full time course in B Arch. In the GGSIPU’s University school of Architecture & Planning and provide me with an attested complete copy of the said Expert Committee’s report/recommendations. |
The report submitted by the Expert Committee of the Council in respect of the proposed University School of Architecture Planning of GGSIPU is in the nature of fiduciary capacity, hence the same cannot be made available to you, in terms of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. |
|
B. |
It may kindly be indicated as to whether the recommendations/report of the aforesaid Expert Committee have been reviewed by the Executive Committee of the Council of Architecture. If so, an attested copy of the minutes/record note of discussions of the meeting / deliberations of the said Executive Committee may kindly be provided to me indicating the names of the members of the Committee who attended the meeting. |
The report of Expert Committee was considered by the Executive Committee at its 95thmeeting held on 16/06/2008. With regard to above, it is to inform you that the minutes & deliberations of the Executive Committee constitute the decision making process of the Council Moreover; this information cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The decision of the Executive Committee has already been communicated to the concerned University |
|
C. |
An attested copy of the latest response sent (position as on dated) by the Council of Architecture to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University on their proposal referred to in (a) above. |
A copy of the Council’s letter No. CA/5/Academic dated 27/06/2008 is enclosed herewith communicating the decision of the Council on the proposal of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. |
The First Appellate Authority ordered: -
“The PIO Council of Architecture had already supplied information to the appellant. However, the decision arrived at on the basis of the Report submitted by the Expert Committee was never withheld by the council and the same has been duly conveyed to all authorities concerned. In the general public interest. I also invite your attention to Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, which among others, also exempts any information which would identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement. Hence, any information which may divulge the source and other detail of the report submitted in confidence by Expert Committee to the Council which is being utilized for maintenance and monitoring of minimum standards as mandated under the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972, is prohibited from disclosure under RTI Act.
In view of the above, you have been provided with all the information in the matter.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Absent
The PIO has refused to give the copy of the report submitted by the Expert Committee of the Council in respect of the proposed University School of Architecture Planning of GGSIPU. He had also denied the minutes & deliberations of the Executive Committee constitute the decision making process of the Council. This information has been claimed to be exempt under Section 8 (1) (e) by the PIO. The First appellate authority has further claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (g) stating that giving the information may divulge the source of information or assistance given for law enforcement purpose.
The PIO has sent written submissions in which he has claimed the ‘experts appointed by the Council… for inspecting architectural institutions is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Right to Information Act as the same are in the nature of fiduciary information.
Such a relationship warrants the maintenance of highest confidentiality of the manner and method of evaluation, both by the Council and the experts and thus are in fiduciary relation ship to each other.’ The PIO also contends that Regulation 30 (4) & (5) of the Council of Architecture Regulations, 1982 enjoins that the reports of Inspectors are of confidential nature. The PIO then goes on to claim that the inspection reports are also exempt under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI act as disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety or identify the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement.
Decision:
Since Right to Information is a fundamental right of Citizens, where denial has to be only on the basis of the exemptions under Section 8 (1), it is necessary to carefully explain the reasons of how any of the exemptions apply, when a PIO wishes to deny information on the basis of the exemptions. Merely quoting the Subsection of Section 8 is not adequate. Giving information is the rule and denial the exception.
In the present case no reasoning has been given initially or in the written submissions as to how releasing the report would lead to endangering the life or physical safety or identify the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement. In the absence of any reasoning, the exemption under Section 8 (1) (g) is held to have been applied without any basis.
The second ground for denial is Section 8 (1) (e) on the ground that the information –‘the report of the Expert Committee’- is held by the Public authority in a fiduciary relationship.
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. financial analyst or trustee. The information must be given by the holder of information when there is a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, or a patient goes to particular doctor. It is also necessary that the principal character of the relationship is the trust placed by the provider of information in the person to whom the information is given. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his the benefit of the giver. When a committee is formed to give a report, the information provided by it in the report cannot be said to be given in a fiduciary relationship. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. The information in the report was certainly not given for the benefit of the Expert Committee. Hence, the contention that the Expert Committee gave the report in a fiduciary relationship is not correct.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send a copy of the report submitted by the Expert Committee of the Council in respect of the proposed University School of Architecture Planning of GGSIPU, and the attested copy of the minutes/record note of discussions of the meeting deliberations of the said Executive Committee to the appellant before 25 February 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner
February 09, 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
- 1. Source: Moneylife