UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMIT SOOD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to decide two writ petitions which arise out of orders passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'CIC') dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure P-6), vide which appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 has been accepted and the information, as sought by respondent No. 1, has been ordered to be supplied to him except for the information sought at para-7 in the RTI application (impugned order in CWP No. 27053 of 2017) whereas the order under challenge in CWP No. 27066 of 2017 is also dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure P-6) wherein the appeal of respondent No. 1 has been allowed. As the issue involved in both these writ petitions for consideration was identical, counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1, who appears in person, submitted that the cases be heard together and a common order be passed therein.

(2.) The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1, filed two applications seeking information under the Right to Information Act. In one he sought information regarding findings of the Court of enquiry conveyed on 08.04.2015 against him and the decision of the competent authority (subject matter of CWP No. 27053 of 2017) and in the other consideration of his letter dated 15.12.2015 addressed to the GOC-in-C Western Command HQ, file notings from the date of its receipt and its inception; name and designation of officers who considered the letter; rules/regulations which lay down timeline for disposal of matters such as the letter in question (subject matter of CWP No. 27066 of 2017). This information was denied to respondent No. 1 on the plea that the information, which is being sought, is exempt from disclosure as per the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) of the Right to Information Act i.e. fiduciary relationship.

(3.) After the First Appeal preferred by respondent No. 1-applicant was dismissed, he filed Second Appeal. In this appeal, the writ petitioner submitted that the terms of fiduciary relationship would include a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship and the various officials may have given their notings in discharge of their duty to act or give advice to their authority/competent authority on matters falling within the scope of that relationship. It was also asserted that the relationship of a public servant with the Government can be fiduciary in respect of a particular transaction or an act when the law requires that the public servant must act with utmost good faith for the benefit of the Government reposing confidence in the integrity of the public servant. The notings have been furnished by the officials in confidence and trust reposed by them in the Government to serve public purpose and interest and, therefore, supplying such an information, which would impeach the confidence, trust and the confidentiality attached, would amount to betrayal of such faith reposed by the officials. It would further amount to compromising or affecting the confidentiality and identity of the fiduciary relationship, sanctity whereof needs to be upheld. It has further been asserted that these opinions and notings are primarily inputs which may or may not be binding upon the competent authority or department and, therefore, this information, which is merely for the purpose of providing inputs for a proper considered decision by the competent authority, cannot be supplied betraying the faith reposed by an official in the system. During the appeal, on a suggestion put forth by the Commission, Section 8 (1) (g) was also sought to be pressed into service by asserting that disclosure of the names of the persons, who would have put in their inputs in the form of notings, would endanger the life and physical safety of such persons and, therefore, the said information has rightly been denied to respondent No. 1.