CIC must record cogent reasons and balance public interest before directing disclosure of sensitive defence procurement records.

The Respondent filed multiple RTI applications seeking photocopies of Supply Orders (SO) and Comparative Statements of Tenders (CST) for the years 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 regarding five specific firms

The Petitioner No. 1 is an establishment under the Ministry of Defence engaged in the overhaul and maintenance of sensitive military equipment

The CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) declined the disclosure, invoking exemptions under Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act, asserting that the information related to commercially sensitive third-party interests and strategic military equipment

On 12.08.2016, the Central Information Commission (CIC) reversed these decisions and directed the CPIO to provide the supply orders, stating that expenditure from the government exchequer justifies public disclosure

The Petitioners challenged this order before the High Court.

The court applied Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), and 11 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which provide exemptions for information affecting national security and commercial confidence

It relied on the precedent in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, which holds that exemptions in Section 8 must be construed to balance transparency with protected public interests, and that authorities must record reasons justifying disclosure in the "larger public interest"

It further cited Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, emphasizing that statutory exemptions operate as the rule and disclosure is an exception requiring recorded satisfaction of the public interest test

The Court found that the CIC’s order was "non-speaking" and "mechanical" because it failed to address the specific objections raised by the Petitioner regarding national security and commercial confidentiality

The Court reasoned that the CIC did not conduct an independent evaluation of how the requested procurement details of military equipment (like "ZU-23 MM Twin Barrel Gun" spares) would impact operational preparedness

Applying the Shaunak H. Satya principle, the Court noted that while public expenditure is a relevant factor, it does not automatically override the statutory protections under Section 8(1) without a balanced, reasoned finding on "larger public interest"

Furthermore, the Respondent's failure to appear suggested a loss of interest in the information, leaving the Petitioner's security concerns uncontroverted

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.08.2016. However, it granted the Respondent liberty to seek restoration of the appeal before the CIC for a fresh, reasoned adjudication in accordance with the law