Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports containing foreign proprietary designs are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

The Petitioner, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), challenged an order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed NPCIL to provide the Respondent with copies of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and Site Evaluation Report (SER) for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) under the RTI Act, after severing proprietary design details.

While the SER was subsequently furnished and uploaded online, NPCIL contested the disclosure of the SAR.

The SAR relates to a nuclear project built in collaboration with the Russian Federation (Atomstroyexport), which objected to the publication of the report.

The Respondent ceased appearing in the matter after 2016.

1. Whether the directions of the CIC to disclose the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) are sustainable under the Right to Information Act, 2005?

2. Whether the SAR is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act?

Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 8(1)(a) protects information affecting the scientific, strategic, and economic interests of the State and foreign relations; Section 8(1)(d) protects commercial confidence and trade secrets; and Section 8(1)(e) protects information held in a fiduciary capacity.

The precedent G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India and Others (2013), which established that safety and design features of the KKNPP are intertwined and that safety concerns regarding the plant had already been judicially scrutinized and addressed.

The Court reasoned that the SAR contains sensitive technical specifications and design details provided by the Russian Federation under an inter-governmental agreement.

Since the Russian entity "Atomstroyexport" specifically objected to the publication, the Petitioner holds this information in a "fiduciary capacity," triggering the exemption under Section 8(1)(e).

The Court noted that disclosure would prejudicially affect "strategic interests" and "foreign relations with a foreign State," falling under the Section 8(1)(a) exemption.

Relying on the G. Sundarrajan judgment, the Court observed that the Supreme Court had already examined the KKNPP’s safety standards and found them to be of a "most modern design."

The Court found no "larger public interest" that outweighed the statutory exemptions, especially since the Respondent appeared to have lost interest in the prosecution of the application.

It held that the SAR is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act due to its strategic nature and the fiduciary relationship between India and the Russian Federation.

The Court set aside the impugned CIC order insofar as it related to the supply of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR).

The petition was disposed of accordingly.