Legal Service India: Article: Friday, 23 January 2026.
Understanding how Indian law balances the Right to Information with protection of confidential business data
In a modern regulatory
state, transparency and accountability are essential for good governance. The
Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) empowers citizens to seek information
from public authorities and promotes openness in decision-making. At the same
time, the law recognizes that not all information can be disclosed. Certain
categories especially trade secrets and commercial confidences require
protection to preserve fair competition, innovation, and economic interests.
The interaction between trade secrets and the RTI Act therefore raises an
important legal question: How far does the right to know extend when it
conflicts with the right to protect confidential business information?
Meaning of Trade Secrets
A trade secret refers to information that is not generally known or readily accessible, derives independent commercial value from its secrecy, and is protected by reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality; such information may include manufacturing processes, formulas, algorithms, pricing strategies, client lists, technical know-how, and proprietary research data.
In India, although there is no standalone legislation specifically governing trade secrets, protection is afforded through contract law by way of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, principles of equity and common law, and consistent judicial precedents that recognize breach of confidence as an actionable civil wrong.
Object and Scope of the RTI Act, 2005
The RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities, reduce corruption, and empower citizens to participate meaningfully in democracy. However, the right to information is not absolute. Section 8 of the Act provides specific exemptions where disclosure of information is restricted to protect larger public interests such as security, privacy, and sensitive government functions.
Trade Secrets under the RTI Act
Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the principal provision governing the protection of trade secrets and commercially sensitive information. It exempts from disclosure information relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property where such disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. The intent of this provision is to strike a balance between the citizen’s right to information and the need to protect legitimate commercial interests from unfair exposure through the RTI mechanism.
From this provision, three essential elements clearly emerge. First, the information sought must fall within the category of commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property. Second, its disclosure must be likely to cause harm to the competitive position of a third party. Third, even where these conditions are satisfied, the exemption is not absolute, as disclosure may still be directed if the competent authority is convinced that a larger public interest outweighs the potential commercial harm.
Role of “Third Party” and Section 11
Where the information sought relates to a third party, such as a private company dealing with the government, Section 11 of the RTI Act requires the Public Information Officer to give notice to the third party, allow it an opportunity to object, and carefully consider those objections. This process ensures procedural fairness before any trade-sensitive or confidential information is disclosed.
Public Interest Override
The RTI Act places overriding importance on public interest. Courts and Information Commissions have held that even trade secrets may be disclosed when they involve public health or safety, environmental protection, misuse of public funds, or corruption and regulatory violations. However, mere curiosity or personal interest of an applicant does not qualify as “larger public interest” under the Act.
Judicial and Administrative Approach
Indian courts and Information Commissions follow a balanced approach in RTI matters. They protect genuine trade secrets and commercially sensitive information, while discouraging blanket or routine claims of confidentiality by public authorities. Disclosure is denied only when real competitive harm is shown. Information given to the government by private entities remains confidential unless a larger public interest clearly justifies disclosure.
Practical Examples
Under the RTI Act, detailed technical drawings, proprietary formulas, and internal pricing strategies submitted in tenders are generally protected from disclosure. However, information such as names of successful bidders, broad contract terms, performance standards, and details on use of public funds is disclosable, so long as core trade secrets are not revealed, ensuring transparency without harming commercial viability.
Challenges and Concerns
One major challenge under the RTI framework is the absence of a dedicated trade secrets law in India. This lack of statutory clarity often results in inconsistent interpretations by Public Information Officers, Information Commissions, and courts. In the absence of uniform standards, decisions depend heavily on case-specific judicial reasoning, which can create uncertainty for both information seekers and private entities dealing with the government.
Another concern is the tendency of some public authorities to over-classify information and invoke Section 8(1)(d) as a routine ground for denial, even where no real commercial harm exists. Additionally, rapid technological developments pose fresh challenges. Digital data, algorithms, software codes, and AI models involve complex and sensitive information, making it increasingly difficult to balance transparency with the need to protect confidential and proprietary interests under the RTI regime.
Relevant Judicial Pronouncements
Indian courts have consistently emphasized that exemptions under the RTI Act must be applied cautiously and not as a matter of routine. In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court underlined the importance of transparency in public administration while recognizing that confidential and sensitive information deserves protection. Similarly, in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012), the Court held that Section 8 exemptions must be strictly construed and balanced against the larger public interest.
Information Commissions have echoed this approach by discouraging blanket claims of commercial confidence. They have repeatedly held that Section 8(1)(d) can be invoked only when there is a clear likelihood of competitive harm. Mere labelling of information as confidential or commercially sensitive is insufficient unless supported by reasons and evidence.
Conclusion
The relationship between trade secrets and the RTI Act reflects a careful balance between the citizen’s right to know and the need to protect confidential business information. The RTI Act does not weaken trade secret protection; instead, it safeguards genuine commercial secrets while permitting disclosure only in rare cases where overriding public interest clearly demands it. Transparency remains the general rule, while secrecy operates as a limited exception. Trade secrets are thus recognised and respected under the RTI framework, subject always to higher considerations of public welfare, accountability, and justice.
Understanding how Indian law balances the Right to Information with protection of confidential business data
Meaning of Trade Secrets
A trade secret refers to information that is not generally known or readily accessible, derives independent commercial value from its secrecy, and is protected by reasonable measures to maintain its confidentiality; such information may include manufacturing processes, formulas, algorithms, pricing strategies, client lists, technical know-how, and proprietary research data.
In India, although there is no standalone legislation specifically governing trade secrets, protection is afforded through contract law by way of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements, principles of equity and common law, and consistent judicial precedents that recognize breach of confidence as an actionable civil wrong.
Object and Scope of the RTI Act, 2005
The RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities, reduce corruption, and empower citizens to participate meaningfully in democracy. However, the right to information is not absolute. Section 8 of the Act provides specific exemptions where disclosure of information is restricted to protect larger public interests such as security, privacy, and sensitive government functions.
Trade Secrets under the RTI Act
Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the principal provision governing the protection of trade secrets and commercially sensitive information. It exempts from disclosure information relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property where such disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. The intent of this provision is to strike a balance between the citizen’s right to information and the need to protect legitimate commercial interests from unfair exposure through the RTI mechanism.
From this provision, three essential elements clearly emerge. First, the information sought must fall within the category of commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property. Second, its disclosure must be likely to cause harm to the competitive position of a third party. Third, even where these conditions are satisfied, the exemption is not absolute, as disclosure may still be directed if the competent authority is convinced that a larger public interest outweighs the potential commercial harm.
Role of “Third Party” and Section 11
Where the information sought relates to a third party, such as a private company dealing with the government, Section 11 of the RTI Act requires the Public Information Officer to give notice to the third party, allow it an opportunity to object, and carefully consider those objections. This process ensures procedural fairness before any trade-sensitive or confidential information is disclosed.
Public Interest Override
The RTI Act places overriding importance on public interest. Courts and Information Commissions have held that even trade secrets may be disclosed when they involve public health or safety, environmental protection, misuse of public funds, or corruption and regulatory violations. However, mere curiosity or personal interest of an applicant does not qualify as “larger public interest” under the Act.
Judicial and Administrative Approach
Indian courts and Information Commissions follow a balanced approach in RTI matters. They protect genuine trade secrets and commercially sensitive information, while discouraging blanket or routine claims of confidentiality by public authorities. Disclosure is denied only when real competitive harm is shown. Information given to the government by private entities remains confidential unless a larger public interest clearly justifies disclosure.
Practical Examples
Under the RTI Act, detailed technical drawings, proprietary formulas, and internal pricing strategies submitted in tenders are generally protected from disclosure. However, information such as names of successful bidders, broad contract terms, performance standards, and details on use of public funds is disclosable, so long as core trade secrets are not revealed, ensuring transparency without harming commercial viability.
Challenges and Concerns
One major challenge under the RTI framework is the absence of a dedicated trade secrets law in India. This lack of statutory clarity often results in inconsistent interpretations by Public Information Officers, Information Commissions, and courts. In the absence of uniform standards, decisions depend heavily on case-specific judicial reasoning, which can create uncertainty for both information seekers and private entities dealing with the government.
Another concern is the tendency of some public authorities to over-classify information and invoke Section 8(1)(d) as a routine ground for denial, even where no real commercial harm exists. Additionally, rapid technological developments pose fresh challenges. Digital data, algorithms, software codes, and AI models involve complex and sensitive information, making it increasingly difficult to balance transparency with the need to protect confidential and proprietary interests under the RTI regime.
Relevant Judicial Pronouncements
Indian courts have consistently emphasized that exemptions under the RTI Act must be applied cautiously and not as a matter of routine. In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court underlined the importance of transparency in public administration while recognizing that confidential and sensitive information deserves protection. Similarly, in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012), the Court held that Section 8 exemptions must be strictly construed and balanced against the larger public interest.
Information Commissions have echoed this approach by discouraging blanket claims of commercial confidence. They have repeatedly held that Section 8(1)(d) can be invoked only when there is a clear likelihood of competitive harm. Mere labelling of information as confidential or commercially sensitive is insufficient unless supported by reasons and evidence.
Conclusion
The relationship between trade secrets and the RTI Act reflects a careful balance between the citizen’s right to know and the need to protect confidential business information. The RTI Act does not weaken trade secret protection; instead, it safeguards genuine commercial secrets while permitting disclosure only in rare cases where overriding public interest clearly demands it. Transparency remains the general rule, while secrecy operates as a limited exception. Trade secrets are thus recognised and respected under the RTI framework, subject always to higher considerations of public welfare, accountability, and justice.
.JPG)
.JPG)
