Most respected madam, I express my concerns regarding the Right to Information Act of 2005, which the Government of India established to foster transparency and accountability. In recent times, Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials has become increasingly important. However, it troubles me that public information officers sometimes withhold information related to the functioning of public authorities, citing commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property. This raises a critical question: how can the Right to Information Act fulfil its intended purpose if such denials persist?

Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials: Are Public Authorities Misusing RTI Exemptions?

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is designed to promote transparency and combat the entrenched “culture of secrecy” within Indian bureaucracy. Nevertheless, an alarming increase in the refusal to provide information, often justified by legal exemptions, poses a significant risk to the fundamental objectives of the Act.

A recent case involving the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Mirzapur highlights a critical question: Can routine administrative data, like staff postings and transfer details, be classified as “commercial secrets?

---

1. The Core Dispute: Posting Details as “Trade Secrets”

In the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. PIO, CMO Mirzapur, the appellant asked for basic information about the posting history, duration of stay, and transfer policy compliance for different classes of employees in the Health Department. (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied this under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. This section exempts the following:

• Commercial confidence
• Trade secrets
• Intellectual property

The PIO argued that disclosing staff details would harm “competitive positions” and demanded the applicant prove the “public interest” involved.

2. The Legal Fallacy of Section 8(1)(d)

The invocation of Section 8(1)(d) in matters of government postings is legally questionable.

• Public Duty vs. Private Commerce: Transfer and posting orders of government servants are administrative actions, not proprietary business secrets.
• Media Precedent: The appellant rightly pointed out that since newspapers and official gazettes regularly publish transfer lists, they cannot suddenly be classified as “commercial confidence” when a citizen requests them via RTI.
• Non-Competitive Context: A government health department does not have “competitors” in a way that a staff listing would damage its market standing.

3. Section 4: The Duty of Voluntary Disclosure

Perhaps the strongest argument against the PIO’s denial is Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. This section mandates that every public authority must proactively publish:

1. The powers and duties of its officers and employees.
2. A directory of its officers and employees.
3. Monthly remuneration and compensation systems.

The department must already make the information about who is posted where and for how long available on its website. Withholding it upon request is not just a denial of a query; it is a violation of the authority’s statutory duty for proactive transparency.

4. The “Reason for Request” Myth

The PIO’s query—“What is the justification/public interest for seeking this information?”—directly contradicts Section 6(2) of the RTI Act.

“An applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information…

The officer must prove why information should be withheld; the citizen is not required to prove why it should be given.

---

5. The Stakes: Accountability and Corruption

The appellant argues that long-term stays of staff in a single district (despite transfer policies) can lead to the formation of “vested interests” and corruption. When PIOs hide posting data, they effectively shield the department from scrutiny regarding the following:

• Policy Violations: Whether the “New Transfer Policy” is being followed or ignored.
• Illegal Gratification: Whether staff are paying to stay in lucrative “attached” positions.

Conclusion: A Test for the Information Commission

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission now faces a vital task. If “trade secrets” can hide the names and tenures of public servants, the RTI Act risks becoming a dead letter. The “working of the public authority” must stay public for a democracy to be healthy.

In the context of your RTI case, a trade secret is a specific legal concept that the Public Information Officer (PIO) is likely using incorrectly to avoid transparency.

Under global legal standards (like WIPO) and Indian jurisprudence, a trade secret is defined by three essential elements:

1. It is Secret: The information is kept from the general public and from people who usually handle this type of information.
2. Commercial Value: It has actual or potential economic value specifically because it is secret. It gives the owner a “competitive advantage.”
3. Reasonable Efforts: The owner has taken active, documented steps to keep it secret (e.g., non-disclosure agreements, locked vaults, and restricted digital access).

---

Why the CMO’s “Trade Secret” Claim is Legally Weak

In your specific case, the PIO is citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Here is why staff posting details fail the “trade secret” test:

• No Competitive Advantage: The Office of the CMO is a public authority performing a statutory duty, not a private business in a competitive market. Knowing how long a clerk has been posted in Mirzapur does not harm the Health Department’s competitive position.
• Public Activity: Transfers and postings are administrative actions of the State. Courts, including the Delhi High Court in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay, have ruled that information concerning the public duties of officials cannot be protected as a trade secret.
• Statutory Disclosure: Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, every public authority must publish a directory of its officers and their powers. Information that the law mandates to be public cannot, by definition, be considered a “secret.”

considered a “secret”. Examples of Actual Trade Secrets

To see the difference, actual trade secrets usually include the following: (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

• The chemical formula for a soft drink (e.g., Coca-Cola).
• Proprietary search algorithms (e.g., Google Search).
• Manufacturing processes or unpatented technical blueprints.
• Private client lists of a commercial firm.

Recommendation for your Hearing (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

During your hearing on February 5th, you may want to argue that:

“The details of staff postings are administrative records of a public authority, not proprietary business processes. They carry no commercial value that would grant a ‘competitive edge’ to the CMO’s office; therefore, they fail to meet the legal definition of a trade secret under Section 8(1)(d).

To help you prepare for your hearing before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, I have drafted a specific rebuttal statement. This document focuses on why the CMO’s claim of “trade secrets” is legally invalid in the context of administrative postings.

Rebuttal: Contradicting the Section 8(1) (d) Claim

You can present this argument to the Information Commissioner:

1. The “Commercial” Misapplication:

The PIO’s reliance on Section 8(1)(d) misinterprets the law. A trade secret must involve a “competitive position.” The Office of the CMO operates as a state monopoly that provides public health services. This means that no “competitor” exists who could harm the staff member by knowing which ward they were posted in.

2. Violation of Section 4(1)(b):

The RTI Act itself mandates the proactive disclosure of a “Directory of Officers and Employees” and “Monthly Remuneration”. The law mandates that information in the public domain can never be classified as a trade secret.

3. Judicial Precedent:

In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner and various High Court rulings, the Supreme Court of India establishes that while personal details (like PAN numbers) remain exempt, the place of posting, tenure, and designation of a public servant represent their public activity, which the CPIO/PIO must disclose to ensure accountability.

Comparison Table for your Argument

You can use this table to show the Commissioner how the PIO’s claim fails the legal test:

Criteria for “Trade Secret”	Does Posting Information Qualify?	Legal Reason
Economic Value	No	Postings are administrative, not for profit-making.
Secrecy	No	Staff are visible to the public; transfer orders are often published.
Competitive Harm	No	The Health Dept does not compete in a marketplace.
Public Interest	Yes	Transparency in transfers prevents corruption and “fixed” postings.

---

Step-by-Step Strategy for the Hearing (Feb 5, 2025) (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

1. Challenge the “Reason” Query: Remind the Commissioner that under Section 6(2), you do not need to provide a “justification” or “public interest” to access non-exempt information.
2. Highlight the “Public Activity”: Argue that how long an employee has been in one district is a matter of public record, not a private secret.
3. Point out Anarchy: Use your point about “backdoor income” to explain that hiding these details encourages the violation of the state’s own Transfer Policy.

Present your case effectively by reviewing the vital application details, official contact emails, and web links for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).

1. Your Specific Case Details (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

Please have these numbers available for all communications and for the physical hearing on February 5th, 2025.

• Appeal Registration No: A-20241102153
• File Number: S09/A/2279/2024
• UPIC Diary Number: D-280520250025
• Hearing Room: S-9 (Court Number 9)
• Presiding Officer: Honourable Information Commissioner (Court 9)

---

2. Official Email & Mobile Contacts (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

Use these to send your “Objection” or “Written Submission” in advance.

Authority / Office	Email Address
Hearing Court S-9 (UPIC)	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
UPIC Webmaster (General)	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Mirzapur	cmomzp@gmail.com
ADM (H) Mirzapur	admhmzp1@gmail.com
Appellant (Your Email)	yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Note: The UPIC office phone number is 0522-2724930. You can call the number to confirm whether the system has placed your digital documents on the physical file before the hearing.

---

3. Important Web Links (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

Resource	Link
Official UPIC Website	upsic.up.gov.in
Check Case Status (UPIC)	Check Appeal Status
UP Online RTI Portal	rtionline.up.gov.in
UPIC Guidelines (Hindi)	Download Guidelines

---

4. Preparation Checklist for Feb 5th Hearing (Voicing Concerns on RTI Denials)

Since the hearing is in Room S-9, ensure you have the following:

1. Triple Set: Carry three sets of your objection—one for the Commissioner, one for the PIO (if they attend), and one for your reference.
2. Point of Law: Refer specifically to Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to prove the information you want is already supposed to be public.
3. Digital Proof: If you sent your objection via email, please carry a printout of the “Sent” email with the date and time visible.

Would you like me to draft a short “Covering Letter” that you can use to email these documents formally to the Commission today?