Information pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India
10 Jun, 2013Background
The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) seeking information pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India along with any other documents pertaining to the efforts to coordinate a joint-registration with Pakistan etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the application filed by APEDA to register Basmati as a geographical indication has been opposed by various parties representing competitive interests and the matter is pending before the Geographical Indications Registry. The PIO also stated that as such the matter is sub-judice and disclosure of any information would affect the competitive positions of the stake holders on whose behalf the application has been filed, hence disclosure of information was exempt under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that APEDA is representing the rights of the stakeholders in the geographical indication Basmati in various proceedings, all over the world. The proceedings in Pakistan involve commercially and politically sensitive information. Disclosure of such information could lead to unwarranted public debate which in turn could prejudice or unduly influence the outcome of these proceedings. The FAA further ruled that they hold this information in fiduciary capacity. Thus, the disclosure of such information is exempt under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act and the appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest which warrants the disclosure of such information. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent.
Citation: Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran v. Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/902403 & CIC/SS/A/2012/902404
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1355
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission