Now we examine as to whether the exception as carved out under section 8 can be applied to the right to information application of the 3rd respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Section 2 (1) (c) of the Copyright act 1957, in the plans submitted by the petitioners there subsists a copyright, and thus disclosure of such information would violate the provisions ofsection 9 of the RTI Act. We are not impressed with this submission. This is for the reason that furnishing of copies of the plans or drawings would not ipso facto amount to infringement of the copyright as the nature of these documents is not such that the mere access to such information itself would breach a copyright. We are in agreement with this submission as made on behalf of the 3rd respondent that mere disclosure of information would not amount to breach of copyright. A confidential information cannot be equated with a copyright. A plain reading ofsection 9 makes it clear that a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person can only be rejected by the concerned authorities under the Act. We fail to appreciate as to how mere disclosure of information would amount to any breach of copyright of the petitioners. Significantly, Section 52(1) (f) of the Copyright Act provides that the reproduction of any work in a certified copy made or supplied in accordance with any law for the time being in force does not constitute an infringement of copyright. The 3rd respondent had sought copies of the development plans and approvals thereon.
Bombay High Court
Ferani Hotels Pvt Ltd vs The State Information ... on 30 October, 2015
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1806 OF 2015
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA AND G.S.KULKARNI, JJ
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 30th OCTOBER 2015
Citation;2016(2) ALLMR 26,2016(2)MHLJ946,
AIR 2016(NOC)384Bom
Print Page
