1. The appellant, Shri Aditya Pratap, vide RTI application dated 29.10.2014 sought for information regarding details of all investments made by LIC in Gitanjali Gems Limited(BSE: Gitanjali NSE: Gitanjali), Core Education & Technologies Ltd, KIRI Industries and Rainbow Papers till today.
2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 26.11.2014, intimated that information sought involved commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the business interests of the public authority. It was, therefore, exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act,2005. Aggrieved by the aforesaid denial of information, the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority (FAA) on 24.12.2014 while stating that information must be provided as the same pertains to statutory functions. There were numerous irregularities in the manner in which investments were made by LIC in these companies and all matters pertaining to investment have to be kept within public knowledge. The FAA vide order dated 20.1.2015 upheld the CPIO reply. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 23.04.2015 by reiterating the grounds of first appeal.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that the appellant had asked for details of all investments made by the LIC in four companies and had mentioned that he had sought the information in larger public interest. They stated that the insurance regulator, IRDAI, had issued guidelines for public disclosure and LIC already has 42 kinds of disclosures on its website. The disclosures made on the website contain, inter alia, LIC investments, income, premium, business, etc. but the company wise disclosure of equity investment is not put on website. The appellant was going by a newspaper report about Geetanjali Gems and sought information on that and appeared to be making unsubstantiated allegations stating that there were numerous irregularities in the manner the investments were made by the LIC in the company. They added that the LICs annual report is tabled in the Parliament and is also available on their website. The LIC carries out investment functions as per IRDA (Investment Regulation, 2000) within the guidelines of their investment committee formed by the Board of LIC and in accordance with the LIC Act, 1956. One of the Board members is the nominee of the Government of India. Besides, there is a system of concurrent audit and statutory audit as per IRDA guidelines. The respondents further added that any disclosure of equity investments in individual companies may have an undesirable impact on the share market and may adversely impact the economic interest of the state.
4. The appellant had quoted from the CIC decision in appeal no. CIC/DS/A/2012/002276 dated 22.8.2013. The Commission observes that the FAA had appropriately responded to the RTI application holding the information sought as exempt u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it clearly involves commercial confidence while quoting parts of the same decision (no. CIC/DS/A/ 2012/002276 - Sham Lal Yadav vs LIC, Mumbai) where the CIC had ordered to provide information in percentage terms of total investments made by the corporation in terms of PSUs, private banks, public sector banks and other companies and to disclose if it is held by them. In the instant case, the appellant has sought details of investments specifically in four companies named by him. Such information is of commercial importance to the corporation and disclosure can impact the corporations and the third parties interests. Again in appeal no CIC/DS/A/2012/002760 (ND Dujari vs LIC dated 11.10.2013) CIC has observed that Portfolio management is a commercial activity of the LIC of India which is governed by IRDA rules within which the investment managers of the corporation are bound to operate while taking investment decisions pertaining to public funds. In our view, any further disclosure in the matter of investment will amount to encroaching on matters of commercial confidence as per the nondisclosure provisions of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 and will not be in larger public interest.
5. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of. (Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy: (T.K. Mohapatra) Dy Secretary & Dy Registrar Tele No. 011-26105027 Copy to : The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Life Insurance Corporation of India Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, Yogakeshema Central Office, Yogakeshema Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400021 Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400021 Shri Aditya Pratap 105, Vankatesh Chambers Prescott Road, Above IDBI Bank Opp: Cathedral Middle School, Fort Mumbai-400001