Exemptions from disclosure of information are legal provisions that limit the right to access certain types of information, even under laws that promote transparency, such as the Right to Information (RTI) Act. These exemptions are designed to protect sensitive information that, if disclosed, could have negative implications for national security, personal privacy, or other significant interests.

Purpose of Exemptions

• Protect National Interests: Some information might be critical to national security, economic stability, or international relations. Disclosing such information could harm the country's strategic or economic interests or disrupt diplomatic relations.
• Ensure Judicial Integrity: Certain information might be under judicial consideration or subject to court orders. Disclosure could interfere with legal proceedings or result in contempt of court.
• Safeguard Confidentiality: Information shared in a fiduciary relationship (like between a lawyer and client) or received in confidence from foreign governments must be protected to maintain trust and secure international cooperation.
• Maintain Competitive Fairness: Commercial and intellectual property information might be sensitive, and its disclosure could harm the competitive position of businesses or individuals.
• Prevent Safety Risks: Information that could endanger someone's life or physical safety, or interfere with ongoing law enforcement investigations, is exempt from disclosure to protect individuals and the integrity of investigations.

• Information Not Required to Be Disclosed If:
  1. Harmful to National Interests:
     • The information could adversely affect India's sovereignty, security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests. It also includes situations where revealing the information might harm relations with other countries or incite unlawful actions.
  2. Court Orders:
     • If any court or tribunal has explicitly prohibited the publication of certain information, or if disclosing it would result in contempt of court, it cannot be shared.
  3. Parliamentary Privilege:
     • Information that would infringe on the privileges of Parliament or the State Legislature is exempt from disclosure.
  4. Commercial and Intellectual Property:
     • Information that includes trade secrets, commercial confidence, or intellectual property which could damage the competitive position of a third party cannot be disclosed unless it is clear that public interest overrides this restriction.
  5. Fiduciary Relationships:
     • Information obtained in a fiduciary context (where one party is trusted to act in another's interest) is protected, unless disclosing it serves a greater public interest.
  6. Confidential Foreign Information:
     • Information received confidentially from foreign governments is exempt from disclosure.
  7. Threats to Safety:
     • Information that could endanger someone's life or safety or reveal confidential sources of information provided for law enforcement or security purposes is not disclosed.
  8. Investigations and Prosecutions:
     • Disclosure that might impede the investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders is restricted.
  9. Cabinet Papers:
     • Cabinet papers and records of discussions by the Council of Ministers and senior officials are generally not disclosed. However, the decisions and the reasons for those decisions must be made public once the decision-making process is completed.
  10. Personal Information:
      • Personal information that is unrelated to public interest or activity is not disclosed. However, if it serves a larger public interest, disclosure may be permitted by public officers.
         
• Public Interest Over Protected Interests:
  • Even when the above exemptions apply, information may still be disclosed if the public interest in releasing the information outweighs the harm that may be caused by such disclosure.
• Twenty-Year Rule:
  • Information about events that occurred at least twenty years before a request is made must be disclosed. This rule ensures transparency about historical events.
  • The exact starting point for this twenty-year period is determined by the Central Government. If there is any dispute regarding the date, it will be resolved according to the provisions for appeals under the Act.
• Grounds for Rejecting Requests:
  • Copyright Infringement:
    • A request for information may be denied if fulfilling the request would violate existing copyright laws held by individuals or entities other than the state.
• Handling Third-Party Information:
  • Notification to Third Parties:
    • If a request involves information that a third party has provided confidentially and is considered sensitive, the public information officer must notify the third party within five days of receiving the request.
    • The notification will inform the third party that their confidential information is being considered for disclosure and will invite them to provide their views on whether the information should be shared or not.
  • Opportunity to Respond:
    • The third party has ten days from receiving the notice to present their arguments or objections against the proposed disclosure. This gives them a chance to protect their interests.
  • Decision on Disclosure:
    • The public information officer must make a final decision on whether to disclose the information within forty days of receiving the request. This decision should take into account any representations made by the third party.
    • The third party will be informed in writing of the decision and their right to appeal if they disagree with the outcome. This ensures that third parties have a clear path to challenge decisions they find unfavorable.

These detailed points provide a thorough understanding of the rules regarding information disclosure, the exceptions, and how third-party information is managed under the Act.

Case Laws:
Disclosure Affecting Security, Economic Interests, and Relations with Foreign States (Section 8(1)(a))

• Case: Kamal Anand vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
• Facts: Kamal Anand requested the departmental guidelines for scrutiny of non-corporate assessees for the financial year 2006-07.
• Decision: The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) denied the request, citing that disclosure could harm the economic interests of the state, as detailed guidelines could enable tax evasion.
• Appeal: The First Appellate Authority agreed with the CPIO, stating that publicizing the guidelines might allow taxpayers to manipulate their income declarations to avoid scrutiny.
• Second Appeal: Anand argued that since the financial year in question had ended, the guidelines should be disclosed. He also noted that similar guidelines were unofficially available online.
• Public Authority's Position: The IT Department explained that a large volume of tax returns are filed annually, with only a small fraction selected for scrutiny. Revealing the guidelines could be misused by some taxpayers to evade taxes.
• CIC Ruling: The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the CPIO's decision, emphasizing that it is within the authority's discretion to determine if disclosure would impact economic interests. The CIC noted that as long as the exemption is applied based on objective criteria, it would not interfere.
   
• Disclosure Forbidden by Court or Tribunal
  Case: KM Talera vs. Cantonment Board Pune
  Decision: The CIC found that the respondents erred in assuming that information related to ongoing court cases did not need to be disclosed. The RTI Act does not exempt information solely because it is related to sub-judice matters. The only exception is if a court or tribunal has expressly forbidden disclosure or if it would constitute contempt of court.
   
• Breach of Parliamentary or Legislative Privilege
  Case: Priya Pal Bante vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat
  Facts: Priya Pal Bante requested information about the 105th report of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions and the action taken report (ATR).
  Decision: The ATR was denied, as documents submitted to the committee are confidential unless presented in the house. The CIC upheld this decision, noting that parliamentary procedures require confidentiality for committee proceedings. The proviso to Section 8(1)(c) clarifies that information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any individual.
   
• Harm to Competitive Position of Third Parties
  Case: N. Ambarasan vs. National Informatics Centre
  Facts: N. Ambarasan, a software developer, sought copies of records related to software developed by NIC for the Karnataka government.
  Decision: NIC refused to disclose the information, arguing that the software is intellectual property, and revealing it could harm competitive positions. The CIC agreed, emphasizing the protection of intellectual property and competitive interests.
   
• Information in Fiduciary Relationship
  Case: Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
  Facts: A student requested access to their evaluated answer sheets.
  Decision: The CBSE claimed exemption due to a fiduciary relationship. The court ruled that no fiduciary relationship existed between the student and the examination body. It held that answer sheets should be accessible for inspection after evaluation, though examiners' identities should remain confidential.
   
• Confidential Information from Foreign Governments
  Case: Arun Jaitley vs. CBI
  Facts: Arun Jaitley sought information about correspondence between UK authorities, Interpol, and CBI concerning investigations.
  Decision: The CBI claimed exemptions, arguing that the information was privileged. The CIC upheld this, but noted that the exemption would not apply indefinitely and encouraged the CBI to expedite the process.
   
• Disclosure Endangering Life or Safety
  Case: Ravinder Kumar vs. B.S. Bassi, Joint Commissioner, Police
  Facts: The applicant requested details about an ongoing police investigation.
  Decision: The CIC upheld the denial of information, as disclosing details of ongoing investigations could impede the process and endanger individuals involved.
   
• Case: A.L. Motwani vs. CPIO, ITI Limited
  Facts: The applicant requested documents related to an ongoing CBI case.
  Decision: The CIC directed ITI Limited to disclose the information, noting that the case was at the charge sheet stage and the documents did not form part of court records.
   
• Case: Kuldeep Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police
  Facts: The appellant requested detailed information from a police case diary.
  Decision: The CIC agreed that disclosing the case diary could compromise confidentiality and safety, thus it was exempt from disclosure.
• Cabinet Papers
  
  Case: Sweety Kothary vs. Department of Legal Affairs
  Facts: The appellant sought recommendations related to the selection of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal members.
  Decision: The CIC ruled that once the decision-making process is complete and decisions are public, the information should be disclosed. However, the Cabinet's deliberations and process were protected until decisions were finalized.
   
• Personal Information
  Case: G.R. Rawal vs. Director General of Income Tax
  Facts: The appellant sought details of tax payments related to a settlement commission decision.
  Decision: The information was denied, as it pertained to personal financial matters not relevant to public interest and could invade privacy.
   
• Case: Sh. Milap Choraria vs. CBDT
  Facts: The appellant requested information about his daughter-in-law's income tax returns for use in a criminal case.
  Decision: The CIC denied the request, noting that the information was third-party and its disclosure would invade privacy. The appellant was advised to seek the information through the appropriate court.

This detailed rephrasing captures the essence of each case and exemption, clarifying the circumstances and decisions involved.

Conclusion
Exemptions from disclosure of information play a crucial role in maintaining the balance between transparency and the protection of essential interests. While the right to access information is fundamental to democratic governance and accountability, certain limitations are necessary to safeguard national security, personal privacy, and other significant concerns.

In conclusion, while exemptions from disclosure are essential to protect various interests, they must be applied judiciously and transparently. The principles underlying these exemptions are not meant to undermine the broader goals of transparency and accountability but to ensure that the dissemination of information does not come at the cost of critical societal values and interests. Effective implementation of these exemptions requires careful consideration, balancing the need for openness with the imperative to protect sensitive and vital information.