The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP), a research institute under the Ministry of Finance, has refused to reveal any information on unaccounted income and wealth inside and outside India, saying that it could affect economic interest of the country.
Denying a copy of the “Estimation of unaccounted income and wealth inside and outside the country” called for by a petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the NIPFP said the information sought was a classified document in terms of the agreement between the institute and the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Thus, the information was exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Not satisfied with the reply of the Chief Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority denying the information that he had requested in 2019, the petitioner, Tallapaneni Krishna, had filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC).
After the petitioner was absent at the hearing, the CIC on August 11, 2021, passed an interim order directing the representative from the Ministry of Finance to be present at the hearing.
The order said, “The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that information sought pertained to NIPFP as well as Central Board of Director Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.”
However, the hearing notice was sent only to the NIPFP. Hence, in the interest of justice and proper disposal of the case, the Registry of this Bench is directed to make party to both the party and issue fresh notice to NIPFP and CBDT along with the appellant.”
However, after Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), CBDT, did not appear in the next hearing on medical grounds and the appellant was also absent, the CIC adjourned the matter again.
When the case came up for orders last week, the appellant remained absent while the Secretary/CPIO, Ministry of Finance and Consultant (Administration), NIPFP attended the hearing in person. They maintained that the contents in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the NIPFP and the CBDT were reflected in the report (sought by the petitioner) and were highly confidential in nature.
They also informed that the disclosure of information sought might have affected the economic interest of the country at large and accordingly, exemption under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act was invoked by them.
Passing orders in the case, Information Commissioner Suresh Chandra said that in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. “There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter,” Mr. Chandra said, and dismissed the appeal.
