Principles underlying Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act reiterated by IBBI

Principles underlying Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act reiterated by IBBI

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has allowed an Appeal pertaining to an application under section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act). In the present matter, the information sought was with respect to a letter dated 06.08.2020 from Mr Methil Unni Krishnan GM on the review application. The documents sought for included the copy of the letter sent by the IBBI to the resolution professional and the copy of the response submitted by the Resolution Professional.

In this appeal, the appellant's main grievance is that the CPIO (Central Public Information Officer ) provided copy of two applications which were sent through email but, these e-mails are not the actual emails, rather appears to be modified. Therefore, the appellant had requested the FAA to provide him duly certified copies of such e-mails.The respondent has submitted that the names and designations of the officers appearing in the emails (between the Board and RP) furnished to the applicant under RTI, were severed under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

The FAA has duly opined that the respondent has provided a part of the information as requested for by the appellant. However, he has claimed exemption from disclosure of the name of the person who sent the email at the appellate stage. It is clear that the appellant only wanted to have the copies of the letters sent to the resolution professional from the Board and the response provided by him and nothing else.

Applying the provisions of section 8(1)(g) of the Act, it comes out to be that disclosure of identity of the person in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India who sent the emails is not likely to endanger his/her life or physical safety as such emails have been sent in the ordinary course of official business and not in any personal capacity of the person. Moreover, if exemption was to be claimed for severance of the name of the person who sent the email, the respondent had to comply with the provisions of section 10(2) of the Act at the time of rejecting access to the information. Had the respondent expressed any apprehension regarding exemption under section 8(1)(g) of the Act at the time of disclosure of information, he would have complied with the requirement of section 10(2). The FAA has also declared that such a plea at the appellate stage is not maintainable as the respondent has not claimed exemption at the time of disclosing part of the information

With regard to the certified copies of the emails, it has been opined that although the appellant is not entitled to certified copies of such e-mails at the appellate stage, it is found that he is doubtful about genuineness of the emails and, that is the reason for his asking for the name of the person who sent them for and on behalf of the Board. Further, the disclosure of the name of the person who sent the email is not likely to endanger his/her life or physical safety as the emails have been sent as part of official duty. In any case, the source of the requested information is the Board, which has already been disclosed by the respondent and the person who sent the email is only a representative of the Board acting in official capacity.

Hence, the appeal has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to provide the requested information without obliterating the name of the sender of emails within 15 days from the date of this order.

The judgement of the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of P Praveen Kumar Vs. CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission has also been referred to wherein it has been observed that keeping in view the apprehensions of the CPIO, Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act can at best be invoked to obliterate only the names, designations and any other identifying particulars of the other officers from the relevant file noting(s), correspondences and letters.