Right to Information and Commercial Secrets: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Disclosure of Development Plans

The case of Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others is a landmark ruling on the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, particularly regarding the disclosure of commercial and development plans submitted to public authorities. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether information submitted by a private entity to a government body could be disclosed under RTI, especially when such information pertains to development plans, sub-division layouts, and other project-related documents.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when Mr. Nusli Neville Wadia (Respondent No.3) filed an RTI application seeking details of development plans, layouts, and approvals submitted by Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The application requested certified copies of all plans, amendments, and reports submitted by the developer.

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. objected to the disclosure, arguing that the requested documents were trade secrets and commercial information protected under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(g), and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. They also claimed that the information sought was unrelated to public interest and was instead part of an ongoing private litigation.

Legal Questions Before the Court

• Does the RTI Act allow disclosure of development plans submitted to public authorities?
• Do Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act provide exemptions for trade secrets and commercial information?
• Can a private party seek information under RTI while being engaged in a commercial dispute?
• What is the scope of ‘larger public interest’ in deciding whether to disclose such information?

Petitioners’ Arguments

Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. contended that:

• The requested documents contained proprietary commercial information and were protected under intellectual property laws.
• Respondent No.3 had previously attempted to obtain the same documents through civil litigation but was denied.
• Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act exempts commercial information from disclosure if it harms the competitive position of the entity.
• Plans and designs are copyrighted, and disclosure under RTI would amount to an infringement of intellectual property rights.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State Information Commission and Mr. Wadia argued that:

• Development plans submitted to a public authority are public records and must be disclosed in the interest of transparency.
• RTI does not exempt all commercial documents from disclosure—only those where harm to competitive position is proven.
• Section 11 of the RTI Act allows third-party objections, but public interest outweighs private commercial claims.
• The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) already mandate disclosure of development plans to buyers and other stakeholders.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, made several critical observations:

1. Public Interest vs. Commercial Secrecy: “The Right to Information Act promotes transparency and accountability in public authorities. Development plans submitted for approval fall within this mandate and cannot be shielded from disclosure merely because they belong to a private entity.”

2. Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights: “The existence of copyright does not automatically exempt documents from disclosure. Section 52(1)(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957, permits reproduction of documents required to be submitted to public authorities.”

3. Importance of RERA and Public Disclosure: “The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, already requires promoters to make sanctioned plans available to the public. The argument that such documents should remain confidential is untenable.”

4. Trade Secrets and Competitive Harm: “Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act protects commercial information only if disclosure harms the competitive position of a third party. No such harm has been demonstrated in this case.”

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the State Information Commission’s order and directed the release of the requested documents, with key findings:

• Development plans, layouts, and approvals submitted to public authorities are public records and must be disclosed.
• There is no violation of trade secrets or copyright as long as the information pertains to regulatory submissions.
• Public interest in transparency outweighs private commercial interests in withholding such information.
• All builders and developers must make sanctioned plans accessible, following the principles of RERA.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for transparency in real estate development:

• It strengthens the RTI Act’s role in ensuring public access to information affecting housing and urban development.
• It reinforces the obligation of real estate developers to disclose sanctioned plans to prospective buyers and the public.
• It limits the misuse of ‘trade secret’ exemptions to block legitimate information requests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case affirms the fundamental principle that regulatory approvals and development plans submitted to public authorities should not be kept confidential under the guise of trade secrets. The ruling aligns with transparency laws and ensures that citizens have access to crucial information affecting urban planning and real estate development.

Petitioner Name: Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd..
Respondent Name: State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 27-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ferani Hotels Pvt. L vs State Information Co Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category