Large infrastructure projects—especially Special Economic Zones (SEZs)—go through multiple layers of approvals: environmental clearances, feasibility studies, and expert reviews. These documents often determine whether the public will support or oppose such projects. Naturally, citizens try to access these records through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
But what happens when the project is under litigation or when authorities claim commercial confidentiality?
A recent case involving the Kandla Port Trust (KPT) and its proposed Multi-Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ) offers important clarity.
The RTI Request: Plans, Comments, and Feasibility Reports
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking:
- The proposed plan for the MPSEZ
- Suggestions and comments received
- Feasibility study reports
The PIO initially asked for additional fees (₹722), which the appellant paid.
However, the PIO later claimed that because the land was under a court-ordered stay, the documents could not be shared. He also promised a refund of the fee.
What Happened During the CIC Hearing
At the Central Information Commission (CIC), both sides presented contrasting arguments:
Appellant’s Position
- The denial was arbitrary and lacked valid legal grounds.
- The PIO used the stay order as an excuse to withhold information.
PIO’s Explanation
The PIO argued that:
- The SEZ project was of national importance, expected to generate massive employment.
- “Vested interest groups” were attempting to block the project using litigation and environmental objections.
- Sensitive documents like feasibility studies and detailed project plans involved commercial confidence, and disclosure could harm competitive interests.
- Therefore, the information was exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which protects trade secrets, commercial confidence, and intellectual property.
He also provided a copy of the Supreme Court stay order.
CIC’s Decision: A Balanced Approach
The Commission agreed in part with the PIO.
Documents That Can Be Withheld
The CIC held that:
- Plans, feasibility reports, and detailed strategic documents were protected under Section 8(1)(d) if their disclosure could harm the competitive position of the public authority or related third parties.
- Therefore, KPT had no obligation to disclose such commercially sensitive information.
Documents That MUST Be Disclosed
However, the CIC made a crucial distinction.
Even if the project is commercially sensitive, the mandatory approvals and statutory clearances obtained for the project cannot be withheld.
The Commission directed the PIO to provide:
- Copies of mandatory government approvals
- Environmental clearances from the Ministry of Environment & Forests
- Any other statutory permissions received for the SEZ project
These documents are part of regulatory compliance and cannot be treated as trade secrets.
What This Means for RTI Applicants
This case provides a helpful rule of thumb:
You CAN access
- Environmental clearances
- Permissions issued authorities
- Mandatory approvals required for a project to proceed
These are public documents and contribute to transparency, especially in large-scale development projects.
You CANNOT access
- Detailed feasibility reports
- Internal project plans
- Commercial strategies or trade-sensitive documents
These are legitimately protected under Section 8(1)(d).
Conclusion
This case shows that while not all SEZ-related documents are accessible under RTI, regulatory approvals and environmental clearances must be disclosed, even if a project is under litigation. Citizens have the right to verify whether a project has obtained the necessary permissions, and authorities cannot hide these documents behind claims of commercial secrecy.
