The Tribune: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 16 May 2026.
The case pertains to an RTI application seeking details of spending on electronic equipment procured during 2021-22, including copies of bills and details of old gadgets.
The Central Information
Commission (CIC) has directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to revisit its denial
of disclosure of bills of procurement of electronic items worth Rs 1.7 crore
during 2021-22. It directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to either furnish their
copies or explain the reasons for the denial.
The case pertains to an RTI application seeking details of spending on electronic equipment procured during 2021-22, including copies of bills and details of old gadgets. The CIC issued the above order after obtaining feedback from third-party vendors under the RTI Act.
According to records cited in the order, the Lok Sabha Secretariat informed the applicant that Rs 1,70,06,897 was spent on the procurement of computer hardware and peripheral items during the period, including laptops, desktops, printers, scanners, UPS systems and tablets. The secretariat, however, refused to provide copies of invoices, claiming disclosure would “harm the competitive position of a third party and no larger public interest had been established by the appellant”.
In his order, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that the respondent public authority had already furnished item-wise expenditure details but denied disclosure of bills, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
“The respondent’s denial is neither reasoned nor substantiated by proceedings followed under Section 11 of the RTI Act,” the commission said.
“Hence, the Commission is of the view that the respondent, “PIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat should revisit the query regarding the bills pertaining to the expenditure already disclosed by them and send a revised reply i) either furnishing the copies of bills to the Appellant or ii) explaining the reason for denial of information, on the basis of feedback from the third party “ vendor/s," it said.
Goyal said non-adherence to the commission’s direction shall attract penal action against the respondent.
The commission, while issuing the direction, also referred to a Delhi High Court judgment in the BSNL versus CIC case. “A balance has to be struck between the principle of promoting honest and open government by ensuring public access to information created by the government on the one hand and the principle of confidentiality breach whereof is likely to cause substantial harm to competitive position of the person from whom information is obtained,” it said, citing the court’s observation.
The case pertains to an RTI application seeking details of spending on electronic equipment procured during 2021-22, including copies of bills and details of old gadgets.
The case pertains to an RTI application seeking details of spending on electronic equipment procured during 2021-22, including copies of bills and details of old gadgets. The CIC issued the above order after obtaining feedback from third-party vendors under the RTI Act.
According to records cited in the order, the Lok Sabha Secretariat informed the applicant that Rs 1,70,06,897 was spent on the procurement of computer hardware and peripheral items during the period, including laptops, desktops, printers, scanners, UPS systems and tablets. The secretariat, however, refused to provide copies of invoices, claiming disclosure would “harm the competitive position of a third party and no larger public interest had been established by the appellant”.
In his order, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that the respondent public authority had already furnished item-wise expenditure details but denied disclosure of bills, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
“The respondent’s denial is neither reasoned nor substantiated by proceedings followed under Section 11 of the RTI Act,” the commission said.
“Hence, the Commission is of the view that the respondent, “PIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat should revisit the query regarding the bills pertaining to the expenditure already disclosed by them and send a revised reply i) either furnishing the copies of bills to the Appellant or ii) explaining the reason for denial of information, on the basis of feedback from the third party “ vendor/s," it said.
Goyal said non-adherence to the commission’s direction shall attract penal action against the respondent.
The commission, while issuing the direction, also referred to a Delhi High Court judgment in the BSNL versus CIC case. “A balance has to be struck between the principle of promoting honest and open government by ensuring public access to information created by the government on the one hand and the principle of confidentiality breach whereof is likely to cause substantial harm to competitive position of the person from whom information is obtained,” it said, citing the court’s observation.
.JPG)
.JPG)
