New Delhi, January 10: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that the Government or a public authority, under the Right to Information Act, has to provide information it has on any company, public or private, despite the company’s refusal to part with such information.

Information commissioner M M Ansari said that a public authority cannot take refuge to “third party exemption” under the RTI Act to deny information merely because the company concerned has not concurred with such disclosure.

“A major concern of the RTI Act is to contain corruption. The disclosure of information relating to corrupt practices of public/private companies is, therefore, largely in public interest” the CIC observed.

The CIC’s order came on an appeal filed by Anil Kumar Sharma of Jabalpur who sought certain information from Registrar of Companies (Ministry of Company Affairs) regarding a company of which he is a shareholder. In his application, he alleged the company had been conducting its business activities in an “illegal manner” and has thus earned profit through corrupt practices. The requisite information was denied on the grounds that the company concerned did not permit the disclosure of information asked for by the appellant and hence cannot be divulged without express concurrence of the company.

Rejecting this argument, the CIC said that as the matter pertained to alleged corruption, disclosure of information was largely in the public interest and any exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act — which protects from disclosure, information relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party — is untenable.

Directing the Registrar of Companies to acquire the information asked for and furnish it to the appellant within 15 days, the CIC said: “The allegations made by the appellant about the illegal activities of the Company in question should have been investigated by the competent body, mainly the Registrar of Companies. However since this was not done, the appellant is advised to approach the competent authority to investigate the allegations made by him so as to find the facts in the matter.”