The Central Information Commission (CIC) has withdrawn the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) after it denied an RTI request to disclose whether the railway tender bidder had declared links with the Rail Neer scam and related cases being investigated by the central agency, PTI reported.The applicants sought details whether the bidding companies disclosed any cases registered against them by the CBI or Enforcement Directorate (ED), including their alleged involvement in the 2015 Rail Neer scam.
RTI seeks disclosure in CBI, ED cases
The RTI application specifically asked the bidders whether they had stated that they were “accused in the famous Rail Neer scam” and that the CBI had “registered an FIR (RC-DAI-2015-A-0032) against them”.It also sought details whether the bidder disclosed that ED had “registered a case under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act”.Additionally, the applicant also asked whether the company informed the authorities about developments such as raids, cash seizures and whether the agencies had filed a “charge sheet” or “complaint”.
CIC flags IRCTC’s ‘mechanical’ denial
IRCTC denied the information citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which covers business confidence and trade secrets. The respondent officials maintained that they had “clearly informed the appellant” and the first appellate authority upheld the reply.However, the CIC found this response insufficient, noting that it “merely stated the terms of the exemption without providing any reasons or justifications.”“Naked or mechanical reference to the exemption clause without explanation of its applicability to the information sought does not constitute a valid or oral reply under the Information Technology Act,” the committee said.The CIC stressed that denials must be supported by “compelling grounds”, adding that “the burden of proving the applicability of the exemption rests solely with the public authority”.The committee found the reply defective, saying it was “not in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act” and directed the IRCTC to re-examine the application and issue a “new and reasonable reply”.
