Introduction
Section 11 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 plays a role in handling third-party information during an RTI request. Section 11 outlines the steps a Public Information Officer (PIO) must take when handling information related to a third party marked as confidential. It balances transparency with privacy by giving third parties a fair chance to object before disclosure. However, public authorities often misuse this section to delay or deny information, as observed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). Applying Section 11 correctly protects the right to information and prevents misuse of confidentiality to avoid accountability.
What Is Section 11 of RTI Act?
Section 11 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 deals with disclosure of information related to third parties. It mandates that if a Public Information Officer (PIO) intends to share confidential information provided by a third party, the PIO must send a written notice to the concerned third party within five days. This notice invites the third party to present their views, either in writing or orally, on whether the information should be disclosed. The PIO must then consider the third party’s submission before making a final decision.
The law allows disclosure of information if public interest outweighs potential harm to the third party, except in cases involving trade or commercial secrets protected by law. It gives the third party ten days to submit objections. The third party is given ten days to submit their objections. After receiving this, the PIO must decide within forty days whether to disclose the information and must inform the third party about the decision. The third party has the right to appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act.
CIC’s View on Misuse of Section 11
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has repeatedly warned public authorities against the misuse of Section 11. Many authorities invoke this section unnecessarily or as a delay tactic. The CIC stresses that this misuse goes against the core objectives of the RTI Act, transparency and accountability.
No Blanket Denial Allowed
The CIC and various courts have ruled that Section 11 should not be used as a blanket excuse to deny information. Third parties do not have an absolute veto. The PIO must weigh the third party’s concerns against the larger public interest. If public interest is greater, the information must be shared.
Reasoned Orders Required
Public authorities must not issue vague or non-speaking orders. Simply quoting Section 11 is not enough. Authorities must provide valid reasons explaining how disclosure would harm the third party’s interests. Without proper justification, denial of information violates the RTI Act.
Judicial Support for Limited Use
In Manjit Singh Bali v. PIO, Department of Posts, the CIC stated that public authorities must give specific reasons for denying information. Citing Section 11 or 8(1)(h) alone is not sufficient. The CIC highlighted that the RTI Act promotes access to information and that exemptions must be narrowly interpreted.
In Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Public Information Officer, the CIC clarified that Section 11 is only a procedural step. This is not a ground for denial. The case emphasized that authorities should not routinely use this provision to block information.
Conclusion
Section 11 protects genuine third-party interests but does not create a barrier to information. The Central Information Commission (CIC) consistently applies this provision with caution. The CIC has consistently ruled that the provision must be applied with care. Public authorities must ensure they follow due process, justify their decisions. Also, avoid misusing Section 11 to shield themselves from scrutiny. The goal of the RTI Act is to empower citizens, not to empower secrecy.
