Rail Neer scam: CIC pulls up IRCTC for denying RTI data on disclosure of CBI, ED cases in tenders

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has withdrawn IRCTC, the catering arm of Indian Railways, over denial of information on an RTI claim seeking to know whether companies bidding on railway tenders had disclosed their alleged links with the Rail Neer ‘scam’ and related cases probed by the central agencies.

The RTI applicant had asked the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) whether the bidders had clearly mentioned CBI or ED cases next to their names, if any, in the tender documents.

The Rail Neer ‘scam’ was a 2015 corruption case investigated by the CBI; in this case, private caterers caused a loss of around ₹19.5 crore to Indian Railways by supplying cheap bottled water instead of mandatory ‘Rail Neer’ in premium trains (Rajdhani and Shatabdi).

The RTI specifically asked whether the bidders had stated that they were “accused in the famous Rail Neer scam” and that the CBI had “registered an FIR (RC-DAI-2015-A-0032) against them”.

They were also asked whether ED had disclosed that it had “registered a case under section 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC and section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act”.

The applicant also wanted to know whether the bidders had informed the authorities about significant developments in these cases, such as raids, seizures of money, and whether a “charge sheet” or “complaint” had been submitted to the court by the institutions.

Broadly speaking, RTI was aimed at checking whether companies were transparent about investigations against them while participating in government tenders.

However, IRCTC rejected the data saying, “The information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts information containing trade confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property from disclosure if disclosure would prejudice the competitive position of a third party.

It protects sensitive business data held by public authorities unless a greater public interest requires disclosure.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the information was sought in the “wider public interest” and was “wrongly denied”, arguing that he was entitled to access such details under the RTI act.

The respondent authorities defended their position by arguing that they had “categorically informed the appellant” about the exemption and that the first appellate authority had approved the response.

Examining the issue, the CIC found the response inadequate and stated that it “only stated the exemption clause without providing any justification or justification.”

“A bare or mechanical reference to an exemption clause without explaining its applicability to the information sought does not constitute a valid or oral reply under the RTI Act,” the CIC said.

Emphasizing the legal requirement, it was stated that denial of information must be supported by “convincing reasons” and that “the burden of proving the applicability of the exemption directly belongs to the public authority.”

Noting that the response was incomplete, the CIC concluded that it was “not in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act” and directed the IRCTC to reconsider the RTI application and issue a “fresh, reasoned response”.