The Central Information Commission has reaffirmed that transparency in public procurement is not merely a policy goal but a statutory obligation. In a decisive ruling, the Commission held that details of contracts awarded through quotations must be proactively published by public authorities, rendering routine RTI applications unnecessary. This judgment reinforces the foundational purpose of the Right to Information Act: to shift the burden of disclosure from the citizen to the state.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Amit Kumar Singh, filed an RTI application on 18 July 2024 seeking comprehensive details of electrical work carried out by CSIR-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research between 1 January 2023 and 18 July 2024. The request included: the names of firms or parties awarded work; the amount paid for each contract; the bank account to which payments were made; and the departmental procedure for awarding work through quotations.
Procedural History
The case progressed through three tiers of RTI redressal:
- 18 July 2024: RTI application filed by appellant
- 16 August 2024: CPIO responded by stating only one document was provided, without disclosing requested details
- 8 October 2024: First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the denial, citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(d), Section 8(1)(e), Section 8(1)(g), and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
- 24 October 2024: Second Appeal filed before the Central Information Commission
Relief Sought
The appellant sought full disclosure of all tender-related information, arguing that such data is inherently public and must be proactively published under Section 4 of the RTI Act. He contended that the CPIO’s response was incomplete, misleading, and contrary to the spirit of transparency.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates proactive disclosure of tender and contract details - including names of contractors, contract amounts, and payment records - when such information does not fall under any exemption under Section 8 or Section 9.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, which obligates public authorities to proactively disclose information of public interest. He cited Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum No. 1/6/2011-IR, which explicitly requires publication of bid award details, including supplier names, contract rates, and total amounts. He further referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, which emphasized that proactive disclosure is not discretionary but a statutory duty to minimize citizen reliance on RTI applications.
For the Respondent
The CPIO contended that disclosure of bank account details and payment records would violate Section 8(1)(j) (personal privacy) and Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary relationship). They also invoked Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) and Section 8(1)(g) (prejudice to competitive position). However, they failed to demonstrate how the specific information sought would cause harm or breach confidentiality under these exemptions.
The Court's Analysis
The Commission undertook a rigorous statutory interpretation of Section 4(2) and its relationship with the exemptions under Section 8. It held that Section 4 imposes a positive obligation on public authorities to disclose information suo motu, particularly where it involves public funds and procurement. The Commission emphasized that the RTI Act is not a tool for accessing information that should already be in the public domain.
"An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms."
The Commission distinguished between information that is genuinely confidential and information that is merely inconvenient to disclose. It noted that the DoPT guidelines, backed by the Ministry of Finance’s directives on e-procurement, explicitly require publication of bid awards above ₹10 lakh. Even for procurements below this threshold, the principle of transparency applies.
The Commission rejected the CPIO’s reliance on Section 8(1)(j), observing that financial transactions involving public money do not constitute personal information under this provision. Similarly, Section 8(1)(e) was inapplicable as no fiduciary relationship existed between the public authority and the contractors. The Commission further held that Section 10 provides a mechanism for partial disclosure through redaction, which the CPIO failed to utilize.
The judgment reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s directive in Kishan Chand Jain that Information Commissions must actively monitor compliance with Section 4. The Commission concluded that non-disclosure of tender details undermines public accountability and violates the very purpose of the RTI Act.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Commission held that Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates proactive disclosure of tender and contract information, including names of contractors, contract amounts, payment records, and scope of work. The CPIO was directed to re-examine the RTI application and provide complete information within four weeks, with redactions only as permitted under Section 10.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proactive Disclosure Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Public authorities must publish all procurement details above ₹10 lakh on their websites, as mandated by DoPT guidelines
- Even for smaller contracts, transparency requires disclosure unless a valid exemption under Section 8 is demonstrably applicable
- Failure to proactively disclose shifts the burden to citizens and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act
Section 8 Exemptions Cannot Be Applied Blanketly
- Claims of commercial confidence (Section 8(1)(d)) or privacy (Section 8(1)(j)) must be substantiated with specific harm
- Generic assertions without evidence of actual prejudice are insufficient to deny disclosure
- Redaction under Section 10 is the correct procedure, not wholesale denial
RTI Applications Should Be the Exception, Not the Rule
- Citizens should not be forced to file RTIs to access information that public authorities are legally bound to publish
- Public authorities must audit their websites quarterly to ensure compliance with Section 4 disclosures
- Non-compliance may attract recommendations under Section 25(5) and potential penalties under Section 20
