All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Petitioner v. Vikrant Bhuria, Delhi High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged an order dated 12th November 2010 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), which directed the petitioner to furnish certified copies of the question papers for the M.Ch super specialty entrance exam conducted for 2005-10, along with copies of the correct answers, to the respondent. The petitioner contended that the question papers were exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The CIC had rejected this contention, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the question papers for the M.Ch super specialty entrance exam constitute intellectual property exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

Whether there exists a fiduciary relationship between the petitioner and the experts who contributed to the question bank, thereby attracting exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Whether the CIC's order directing disclosure of the question papers should be interfered with by this Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The question papers are the intellectual property of the petitioner and disclosure would harm the competitive position of third parties, thus exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

The question papers were developed with the time and expertise of many experts who contributed confidentially, establishing a fiduciary relationship with the petitioner, thereby exempting the information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

The larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of the question papers.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to the question papers. It held that under Section 8(1)(d), exemption applies only if the information constitutes intellectual property and its disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how disclosure would cause such harm. Regarding Section 8(1)(e), the Court found no fiduciary relationship between the petitioner and the experts who contributed to the question bank. Consequently, neither exemption was applicable. The Court emphasized that unless a public authority establishes that information is exempt under Section 8(1), disclosure is mandated. Finding no legal basis to interfere, the Court upheld the CIC's order directing disclosure.

Holding and Implications

The Court dismissed the writ petition and the pending application, thereby affirming the CIC's order directing the petitioner to furnish the requested question papers and answers to the respondent. The direct effect is that the petitioner must comply with the CIC's directive. The opinion sets no new precedent beyond the application of existing RTI Act provisions to the facts of this case.

All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Petitioner v. Vikrant Bhuria

O R D E R

22.12.2010

CM No. 21851 of 2010 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

W.P(C) 8558/2010 & CM No. 21850/2010 (for Stay)

1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 12th November 2010 passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) directing the Petitioner to furnish to the Respondent the certified copies of the question papers for the entrance exam conducted for M.ch super specialty course for 2005-10 together with copies of the correct answers. The CIC has in the impugned order negatived the stand of the Petitioner that such information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) & (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’).

2. Before this Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated that for the purposes of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act the question papers were the intellectual property of the Petitioner and that the larger public interest did not warrant their disclosure. It is submitted that since many experts had contributed their time and expertise and develop the question bank. The questions should be considered as having been given to the Petitioner by such experts in confidence. According to him, there was a fiduciary relationship between the Petitioner and such experts and therefore the question papers were exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

3. This Court finds neither of the grounds urged by the Petitioner to be tenable in law. Unless the public authority is able to show that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) RTI Act, the information sought is required to be disclosed to the applicant. Under Section 8(1)(d) RTI Act, what is exempted is only such information which constitutes intellectual property and when disclosed “would harm the competitive position of a third party.” The Petitioner has not been able to show how the disclosure of the entrance exam question papers to the Respondent would adversely affect the competitive position of any third party, Section 8(1)(d) RTI Act is not attracted at all. Further, it cannot be said that there is a fiduciary relationship between the experts, who have helped to develop the question bank and the Petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, Section 8(1)(e) RTI Act is also not attracted in the present case.

4. There is no ground made out for interference with the impugned order dated 12 November 2010 of the CIC. The writ petition and the pending application are dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J

DECEMBER 22, 2010 ak

W.P(C) 8558/2010

All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Petitioner v. Vikrant Bhuria

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

All India Institute Of Medical Sciences Petitioner v. Vikrant Bhuria

Comments