Appeal against Single Judge order allowing disclosure of structural drawings of a collapsed Metro pillar. Court held request was already available in public domain, negating claims of harm to security, economic interests, or investigation, dismissing appeal.
Appeal dismissed without any order as to costs; Single Judge's order allowing disclosure upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG with Mr.Tarun Johri, Adv.
Versus
SH. SUDHIR VOHRA ..... Respondent Through: Respondent in person
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
DIPAK MISRA, CJ
Calling in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 24th
December, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3036/2010, the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
page 1 of 12
LPA 145/2011
page 2 of 12
LPA 145/2011
the public at large, there is a possibility of anti-national elements causing sabotage to the structures at the vulnerable points and that is why photography of certain sensitive structures such as bridges, etc. is prohibited. In essence, it was urged that the disclosure of the designs / drawings in question would be prejudicial to the safety and security of the travelling public and would impede the sovereignty and integrity of India as also the security and strategic interests of the State. Thus, the DMRC contended that it was exempted under Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (h) of the RTI Act. A further stand was also set forth that in relation to the accident that had taken place, a criminal investigation was pending and the disclosure of the requisite information may hamper the investigation and, hence, the information was withheld under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
page 3 of 12
LPA 145/2011
design of the failed structure in the public domain may spur all the authorities to develop safer design in providing optimal security to the travelling public; that the plea pertaining to investigation by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police was not likely to be adversely affected by the disclosure of the information sought and, therefore, Section 8(1)(h) was not attracted. Being of this view, the Commission directed the DMRC to supply the information as sought for by the respondent.
page 4 of 12
LPA 145/2011
DMRC. The respondent who appeared in person combated the said submissions and also contended that the design is already on the public domain, the same being available on the internet.
Act and opined that there is no discretion to refuse when it comes to disclosure of information pertaining to a copyright vesting in the State and, therefore, the DMRC cannot refuse the information sought even if it might involve infringement of its copyright in the design pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar No.67. The learned Single Judge further opined that whatever copyright the DMRC has in the design in question, the DMRC can, in terms of the law governing the copyright in the country, seek to protect such right in the manner known to law. The writ court, referring to Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, has expressed the view that when DMRC has already taken a stand that the design was faulty and it is not going to be used in future and further the same is available to the public on the internet, the disclosure of such design can hardly be said to prejudicially affect the security, strategic, scientific and economic interests of the DMRC.
page 5 of 12
LPA 145/2011
page 6 of 12
LPA 145/2011
respondent has already received the information through internet and the same is undisputed and under these circumstances, there is no necessity to supply the said information to the appellant.
page 7 of 12
LPA 145/2011
General has not disputed the fact. It is not disputed before us that the appellant Corporation would come within the concept of State. The submission of Mr.Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, is that Sections 8 and 9 are to be read in a conjoint manner for the purpose that while Section 9 lays down that a request for information involving an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than in a State may be rejected but a State in cases that come under any of the clauses of Section 8 can refuse to provide such information relating to copyright. He
has laid immense emphasis on clauses (a), (d), (g) and (h) of the said provision. The said provisions are reproduced below:
“8. Exemption form disclosure of information – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, -
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
(b) X X X (c) X X X
(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
page 8 of 12
LPA 145/2011
larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(e) X X X (f) X X X
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety to any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;”
Relying on the said provisions, it is canvassed that the disclosure
would affect the security, strategic, scientific and economic interests of the Corporation. It is also put forth that the supply of information would tantamount to disclosure of trade secret and commercial confidence. That apart, emphasis has been laid on the issue that as an investigation is in progress, a disclosure of such nature would impair the process of investigation.
the arena of security, strategic, scientific and economic interests of the State
and there is no need to place any interpretation of the said terms in the
page 9 of 12
LPA 145/2011
context in which they have been used under Section 8(1)(a). We are disposed to think so as the information sought by the respondent is already within the public domain. There is no dispute over the facts that it is available on the internet. It was admitted before us that the drawing / details were available with the contractors, engineers, etc. They were not classified as secret or restricted documents. There may be facts / situations where a disclosure may affect the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State but when there is no need to enter into the arena for the purpose of interpreting the said situation in the obtaining factual matrix, we do not intend to dwell upon the said area. It is further urged that the disclosure would reveal the trade secret. The plea relating to commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property does not arise if the document / information is in the public domain and has been freely circulated and communicated to various parties involved in the execution of the work. In the case at hand, the said issue also does not arise inasmuch as there is no issue of revelation or disclosure of commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party. There is no reason relating to public interest on this count. On the contrary, it has
page 10 of 12
LPA 145/2011
already been revealed in a different way. That apart, as we have already stated that the design was given to the engineers, contractors, subcontractors and other people working in the field, there has been disclosure earlier. Therefore, clause (a) to Section 8(1) of the Act is not attracted as the disclosure and furnishing of information cannot prejudicially affect the scientific and economic interests of the State.
page 11 of 12
LPA 145/2011
economic interests of the State but the present case is not such a one. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge is absolutely defensible.
without any order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 1, 2011 Kapil/dk
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
page 12 of 12
LPA 145/2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a State entity can refuse disclosure of structural design drawings under Section 8(1)(a) claiming it affects security and economic interests when the information is already in the public domai
Whether disclosure of the drawings would impede an ongoing criminal investigation under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act when the information is accessible to the public.
Whether Section 9 exemption regarding copyright infringement applies when the State entity owns the copyright and the design is already public knowledge.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Sh. Sudhir Vohra
Sanjiv Khanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
