FERANI HOTELS PVT. LTD. VS. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, GREATER MUMBAI & ORS [2018 (SC) 30514]:

DATE: 27.09.2018

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justices Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul

FACTS:

The case arose from a long-standing development agreement dated January 2, 1995, executed between Nusli Neville Wadia (respondent No. 3, as sole administrator of the estate of late Shri E.F. Dinshaw) and Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant), under which Ferani was to develop three plots of land in Malad (West), Mumbai. The agreement was coupled with an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of Ferani. Disputes emerged between the parties in 2008, leading respondent No. 3 to terminate the development agreement and power of attorney on May 12, 2008. On May 13, 2008, respondent No. 3 filed Civil Suit No. 1628 of 2008 in the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that the termination was valid, which remained pending. In the suit proceedings, respondent No. 3 sought production of documents related to the development undertaken by Ferani, but Ferani's counsel refused to produce them, claiming they involved commercial confidence or trade secrets.

Unable to obtain the documents through the civil suit, respondent No. 3 filed an RTI application dated December 10, 2012, under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, with the Public Information Officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The application sought certified copies of the property card, building and development plans (including amendments) submitted by Ferani or its architects, layout/subdivision plans, development plans with amendments, and reports submitted to the Municipal Commissioner along with approvals. The PIO, treating it as third-party information, issued notice to Ferani under Section 11. Ferani objected, asserting exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence/trade secrets) and 8(1)(j) (personal information), as well as Section 9 (copyright infringement). The PIO rejected the application. Respondent No. 3's first appeal succeeded partially, but upon second appeal, the State Information Commissioner (Greater Mumbai) on January 31, 2015, directed full disclosure. Ferani challenged this before the Bombay High Court via writ petitions, which were dismissed, prompting Ferani to file special leave petitions leading to civil appeals before the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES:

The issues presented in this case before the Supreme Court of India centred on whether the certified copies of property cards (PR cards), building and development plans (along with all amendments), layout/sub-division plans, and reports together with approvals submitted by the appellant developer (Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) were exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The core questions were whether such information attracted the exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property whose disclosure would harm competitive position), Section 8(1)(j) (personal information having no nexus with public activity or interest and likely to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy), and Section 9 (infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State), or whether the documents, once submitted to and processed by a public authority for statutory approvals, became part of the public record liable to be disclosed in furtherance of the Act’s objectives of transparency and accountability, irrespective of the fact that the request emanated from a pending private civil dispute and the applicant was a business competitor.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

In its judgement delivered on September 27, 2018, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., upheld the orders of the State Information Commissioner (Greater Mumbai) and the Bombay High Court directing full disclosure of the information sought in the RTI application dated December 10, 2012, and quantified costs at Rs. 2.50 lakhs payable by the appellant to respondent No. 3. The Court additionally observed that, keeping in view the objectives of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, developers must mandatorily display the sanctioned plans/layout plans at the project site to promote transparency and prevent violations.

The reasoning of the Court was rooted in the expansive definitions under the RTI Act: “information” under Section 2(f) and the “right to information” under Section 2(j) clearly encompass documents and records held by or under the control of a public authority such as the MCGM. The Bench emphasised that Section 6(2) expressly dispenses with the requirement of the applicant furnishing any reason for seeking the information, thereby making the private motive or pending civil suit irrelevant. Once plans and layouts are submitted to the municipal authority for sanction and are processed through multiple departments, they cease to remain private commercial secrets or trade secrets protected under Section 8(1)(d); they become public records within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court rejected the trade-secret and competitive-harm argument by noting that real-estate development inherently involves public interest, as flats are ultimately purchased by citizens at large, and disclosure of approved plans does not cause any competitive disadvantage but rather furthers accountability.

Equally, the exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 9 were held inapplicable: the information did not qualify as “personal information” having no public nexus, and certified copies of plans approved by a public authority do not infringe copyright because Section 52(1)(f) of the Copyright Act, 1957 permits reproduction of such works in accordance with law, while Section 22 of the RTI Act gives overriding effect. The Bench underscored that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RTI Act and its Preamble mandate transparency in the working of public authorities; withholding statutorily mandated development plans would defeat this objective. Even the sub-judice plea was brushed aside, as the RTI route is independent of civil proceedings. The Court thus concluded that larger public interest in transparency of real-estate approvals clearly outweighed any private commercial concerns, rendering the exemptions inapplicable and mandating disclosure.

ANALYSIS:

The Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Information Commissioner, Greater Mumbai & Ors. ([2018] INSC 904) judgment is a significant affirmation of the RTI Act's pro-disclosure ethos in the realm of urban development and real-estate regulation. By dismissing the developer's appeals and mandating full disclosure of sanctioned building plans, layout plans, property cards, and related approvals submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Supreme Court decisively held that such documents, once processed and approved by a public authority for statutory compliance, lose any claim to protection as trade secrets, commercial confidence under Section 8(1)(d), personal information under Section 8(1)(j), or copyright-infringing material under Section 9. The ruling clarified that the RTI regime operates independently of private civil disputes or competitive motives, with Section 6(2) rendering the applicant's reasons irrelevant. The Court's emphasis on real-estate projects' inherent public interest, since developments ultimately serve citizen buyers and impact urban planning reinforced transparency as a tool for accountability, while its observation on mandatory display of sanctioned plans at project sites (aligned with RERA objectives) has encouraged proactive public access and deterred violations.

This decision has bolstered citizens' and stakeholders' ability to scrutinize municipal approvals and developer compliance, curbing potential arbitrariness or favoritism in sanctioning processes and promoting informed public participation in urban governance. While praised for narrowing exemptions and preventing misuse of confidentiality claims to shield regulatory records, some analyses note its context-specific nature, applying readily to statutorily mandated public submissions without broadly resolving thornier third-party commercial information disputes in other sectors. The imposition of costs on the appellant for pursuing what the Court termed a "legal misadventure" underscored judicial impatience with attempts to weaponize exemptions against RTI's transparency goals. Overall, the judgment remains a key precedent for denying exemptions to development-related records held by public authorities, strengthening the balance in favour of openness in public-interest domains like real estate while maintaining the RTI Act's overriding effect over conflicting laws.