LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-145

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Decided On November 21, 2012
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD Appellant
V/S
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition impugns the order dated 06.11.2012 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal and directing the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the respondent No.3 Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to provide the information sought, to the respondent No.4. Though as per the Roster of this Court, the writ petition challenging the order of the CIC is to be heard by a Single Judge of this Court but the same is listed before us because the petitioner has also sought a declaration of "Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India". We have as such first heard the senior counsel for the petitioner on the vires of Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act inasmuch as if we do not find any merit in the said challenge, the petition so far as challenging the order dated 06.11.2012 of the CIC, is to be considered by a Single Judge Bench of this Court.

(2.) Section 8 of the RTI Act details the information which is exempt from disclosure. Clauses (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) thereof exempts from disclosure:

(3.) Though the petitioner who is opposing the disclosure claiming exemption under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) supra, has sought declaration of the entire Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) as ultra vires but the senior counsel for the petitioner has confined the challenge only to the proviso? to the aforesaid exemptions. It is contended, that the proviso? virtually takes away the exemption provided for in Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) and is too widely worded leaving unguided discretion in the Competent Authority to override the exemption by citing public interest, without defining "larger public interest" and is thus arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is alternatively contended that the said proviso? may be required to be "read down".