Delhi High Court
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs Shri Sudhir Vohra on 1 August, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 5th July, 2011
% Judgment Pronounced on:1st August, 2011
+ LPA No. 145/2011
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
1 Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
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.
LPA 145/2011 page 1 of 12
2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be
exposited are that the respondent, an architect, filed an application under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity „the RTI Act‟) requiring the
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) to give him "all structural
drawings of both the pile foundation and the superstructure, including all
steel reinforcement details, foundation details, engineering calculations
and soil tests" pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar No.67
which had collapsed on 12th July, 2009 resulting in the death of six persons
and injury to many others. The Central Public Information Officer of the
DMRC, by communication dated 7th/10th July, 2009, declined the
information sought on the ground that it was intellectual property of the
DMRC and considerable cost and time had been spent in preparing the
design. The DMRC also claimed exemption from disclosure under Section
8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Central Public
Information Officer and the first appellate authority, the respondent
preferred an appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC).
Before the Commission, a further ground was urged by the appellant that
if the details of the designs / drawings are disclosed to the applicant for
LPA 145/2011 page 2 of 12
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.
4. The CIC, by order dated 18th March, 2010, repelled the submissions
of the DMRC and expressed the view that the DMRC is „State‟ and,
therefore, it cannot decline to supply the information under Section 8(1)(d)
of the RTI Act; that the exemption claimed under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI
Act could not be held to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity
of India or its security and strategic interests; that the disclosure of the
information sought is in the larger public interest inasmuch as placing the
LPA 145/2011 page 3 of 12
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.
5. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the DMRC invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India and contended before the learned Single Judge that the Commission
has failed to appreciate the stand and stance of the DMRC especially
pertaining to the security interest and the jeopardy that is likely to be
caused by such supply of information. It was also urged that the design of
the Pillar No. 67 is the intellectual property of the DMRC and, therefore,
the CIC could not compel the DMRC to disclose such design unless the
larger public so warranted. It was argued before the learned Single Judge
that the design was a faulty one and the DMRC does not intend to use it in
future in any construction project and further furnishing / disclosure of
such information would adversely affect the economic interest of the
LPA 145/2011 page 4 of 12
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.
6. The learned Single Judge referred to Sections 8(1)(d) and 9 of the RTI
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.
LPA 145/2011 page 5 of 12
7. We have heard Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati, the learned Attorney
General along with Mr.Tarun Johri, the learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.Sudhir Vohra, the respondent in person.
8. Assailing the impugned order, it is submitted by Mr.Goolam E.
Vahanvati, the learned Attorney General for India, that the Commission as
well as the learned Single Judge has fallen into grave error in their
appreciation of the analysis of Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (h) of the RTI Act
inasmuch as these provisions have to be read in conjunction with Section 9
of the RTI Act. It is proponed by him that a manifest error has crept in the
process of judicial review by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as he has
observed that as the information is already in the public domain, the plea
of the DMRC, the present appellant, that such disclosure could
prejudicially affect the security, strategic, scientific or economic interest is
unsustainable. It is his further submission that Section 8(1)(a) has to be
interpreted in a restricted manner for a broader interpretation is likely to
put the State security and other ancillary facets into jeopardy as there can
be applications seeking information with regard to airports, strategic
complexes and such other public buildings. It is further propounded by
Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati, the learned Attorney General, that the
LPA 145/2011 page 6 of 12
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.
9. Mr.Sudhir Vohra, the respondent appearing in person, in
oppugnation of the aforesaid submissions, would contend that the
interpretation placed by the Commission which has been concurred with
by the learned Single Judge is absolutely flawless as the object and
purpose of the RTI Act is to bring transparency in the democratic set up
and, therefore, the orders are absolutely impeccable. He has also
submitted that the information may be available on the internet but as he
has a right to get the information from the DMRC under the RTI Act and
his right being a statutory right, the same cannot be denied on the plea that
it is already in the public domain and he can collect the information
therefrom.
10. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, it is
profitable to refer to Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Section 8 stipulates
the exemption from disclosure of information. Section 9 provides the
grounds for rejection to access in certain cases. The learned Attorney
LPA 145/2011 page 7 of 12
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
LPA 145/2011 page 8 of 12
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.
11. As we perceive, in the case at hand, we are not required to enter into
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
LPA 145/2011 page 9 of 12
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
LPA 145/2011 page 10 of 12
already been revealed in a different way. That apart, as we have already
stated that the design was given to the engineers, contractors, sub-
contractors 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.
12. The next limb of submission is that the information would impede
the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders. Be it noted, the
petitioner wanted to have information of all structures / drawings of
Cantilevered bracket of Metro Pillar Number 67 that collapsed on the 12th
July, 2009 and all structural drawings of both the pile foundation and the
superstructure, including all steel reinforcement details, foundation
details, engineering calculations and SOIL Tests.
13. Supplying the aforesaid information, as we perceive, would not
impair the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders more so
when it is in the public domain. It is not shown how the furnishing of
information would impede the investigation or prosecution of offenders.
LPA 145/2011 page 11 of 12
14. Regard being had to the aforesaid analysis in the backdrop of the
factual context, we are unable to accept the submissions canvassed on
behalf of the appellant. However, we may state that there may be a
situation where disclosure may affect the security, strategic, scientific and
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.
15. Resultantly, the appeal, being sans substratum, stands dismissed
without any order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 1, 2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Kapil/dk
LPA 145/2011 page 12 of 12
