RTI Act applies to state-owned companies, High Court rules
Justice Hussain Majeed, who presided over the three-judge bench, gave a detailed reply to the appeal.
Top Stories
By
Mohamed Muzayyin Nazim
Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, all companies set up by the government will have to disclose information, the High Court ruled Sunday.
Some state companies refuse to disclose information under RTI on the ground that state-owned companies are not included as the 'state agencies' mentioned in the Act.
The High Court's order came on an appeal filed by social media activist Aiman Latheef, who had approached the Information Commissioner's Office (ICOM) seeking details of the salaries of directors and senior employees of the national bank. Thus:
-
ICOM concluded that the information was to be provided
-
However, BML opposed the decision and refused to provide the information and appealed against ICOM
-
The High Court held that ICOM had decided correctly
One of the reasons why the bank refused to provide the information Aiman had sought was that it was not part of the 'state agencies' mentioned in the law. In its appeal, the bank said:
-
ICOM's designation of RBI as a state agency is illegal
Justice Hussain Majeed, who presided over the three-judge bench, gave a detailed reply to the appeal. Justices Mohamed Niyaz and Hassan Shafiu, who were the next members of the bench, supported the verdict.
Justice Hussain Majeed’s response laid down how the law defines a state agency as well as how it is defined in the rules made by ICOM. Thus:
-
The law defines the state agency as any agency run by the ruling party including parliament, law and order power, independent institutions, top positions, security services, elected councillors, any state-funded establishment, and budget-funded establishment
-
The regulations define the state agency in the same way, but adds: "State-made companies are considered state agencies as well".
Majeed's dissent pointed out that it does not appear to be a legal issue to include "state-owned companies" in the regulations as state agency.
"This would be seen as an explanation of the meaning given to the 'state agency' in the law," Majeed wrote.
The next appeal was that the information Aiman had sought could not be disclosed in the interest of business. However, the court did not accept it.
"We do not believe that this information can be treated as a trade or company secret. It is not possible [for the bank] to make a reason why disclosure of such information would be detrimental to the business or financial interests of the bank," the court said.
The three judges, therefore, ruled that there was no legal ground to appeal ICOM's decision to disclose the information.
