‘Confidential’ label alone not enough to deny mine maps, CIC orders disclosure of permissible info

The Central Information Commission has directed the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) to revisit the denial of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) maps of three limestone mines in Telangana, observing that merely classifying the information as confidential was not sufficient to deny its disclosure under the Right to Information Act.

Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi directed the IBM’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide relevant permissible information after severing portions exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

If the information cannot be disclosed, the CPIO has been asked to incorporate relevant justification in a revised reply.

The RTI application sought certified DEM maps of three limestone mines in Suryapet district of Telangana from 2017 to 2025.

The mines identified in the application were Sulthanpur Reserved Forest Mine, Gundlapally Limestone Mine and Pedaveedu Limestone Mine. The CPIO, in its reply, said DEM maps from 2017 to 2022 were not available with the office.

It said data after 2022 was available but could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure could harm the competitive position of a third party.

The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial, stating that the information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) as it contained “commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property”, disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the third party.

During the hearing, the appellant said the DEM maps were sought from the IBM to corroborate evidence in a court case in support of a claim of illegal mining carried out by a third-party company.

The CPIO maintained that DEM maps generally contain sensitive information relating to mining operations and that their disclosure or misuse could harm the competitive position of the concerned party.

The third-party company also objected to disclosure of its mining DEM maps.

The commission, however, observed that the “complete denial” of DEM maps merely by “classifying it to be confidential” would not discharge the CPIO’s onus under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.

“Had it been the case, it is expected from the CPIO to substantiate their denial of information with substantive justification to this effect,” the commission said.

The CIC directed the CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application and provide “relevant permissible information” after severing the portion exempt from disclosure by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act.

It further said that if the CPIO finds that the information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, the revised reply must contain the relevant justification for such denial.