Case Law 1:
Case/Question decided:
If a Public Authority like SEBI receives any document/information during the course of conducting its statutory duties, can they be considered to be received in “fiduciary relationship” and can it be treated to be the information exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act 2005, which entitles the Public Authority to deny from providing such information, if requested by any applicant under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 ?
Relevant Act:
Right to information Act 2005
Decided Case law:
Dr. Terence Nazareth
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai
Case Decided by:
Rajeev Kumar Agarwal
Appellate Authority
SEBI
Clarification:
The appellate authority while deciding the above case has referred to the principal laid down by the High court of Delhi (as per a decided case law) in deciding the fiduciary relationship, which is as follows:
“In a fiduciary relationship, the principal emphasis is on trust, and reliance, the fiduciary’s superior power and corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the fiduciary. It requires a dominant position, integrity and responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not oneself.”
Based on the above mentioned principle the Appellate Authority has decided that the information provided in the instant case can be treated as information received in the fiduciary relationship and henceforth exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Note:
The decision has been given based on the merits of the case, henceforth it should be noted that every information received by Public Authority during the course of conducting its statutory dues cannot be treated to be exempted as aforementioned.
Case Law 2:
Case/Question decided:
Pursuant to Right to Information Act, Mr. X has approached Registrar of Companies (ROC), requesting them to provide some information/documents maintained by them under Section 610 of the Companies Act 1956.
However ROC officials have replied to Mr. X that the required information is available in the public domain (namely on MCA website) and even certified copies of the documents required can also be obtained from their office by following prescribed procedure and on payment of requisite fee and further explained that procedure prescribed under Right to Information Act for providing the information cannot be followed for this purpose.
Then Mr. X has approached Central Information commission and obtained order in favor of him, which directs the ROC to provide the required information pursuant to Right to Information Act.
Then the respective ROC has filed a writ petition, challenging the order of Central Information Commission and presented the aforementioned views (refer para no. 2) before the court.
Now, the question is whether the views of ROC has held correct or not ?
Relevant Acts:
Companies Act 1956
Right to Information Act 2005
Decided Case law:
Registrar of Companies & ORS
vs.
Dharmendra Kumar Garg & ANR (DEL)
Case decided by:
Vipin Singh, J.
Clarification:
The view of ROC has been held correct and the judgment has pronounced that information required by Mr. X cannot be treated as the information held by or under the control of Public Authority as contemplated under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act 2005 and henceforth squashed the order passed by Central Information commission.