In Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited [DMRC] v Sudhir Vohra, Delhi High Court rejected the contention of the DMRC, which had refused to disclose the design of one of its pillars sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In the case, Vohra, an architect, applied to the DMRC under the RTI Act asking to be given “all structural drawings of both the pile foundation and the superstructure, including all steel reinforcement details, foundation details, engineering calculations and soil tests” pertaining to the cantilevered bracket of metro pillar no 67. This pillar had collapsed on 12 July 2009 leaving six people dead and several injured.
The DMRC refused to disclose this information claiming exemption from the RTI Act, under section 8(1)(d), as these details were intellectual property (IP) that it owned and had spent considerable time and money in building up. However, the Central Information Commission saw little merit in their argument and accepted Vohra’s right to know. This triggered an appeal by the DMRC in Delhi High Court.
In dismissing the DMRC’s petition, the court held that section 9 of the RTI Act provides that an RTI applicant can be denied information if it involves an “infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State”. The court noted that the words “other than the State”, at the end of section 9, reflect the legislative intent that the exemption from disclosure is available only if it infringes on the copyright of a person.
If the copyright belongs to the state, “the DMRC cannot refuse information sought even if it might involve infringement of its copyright in the design”. However, the court added that the DMRC can protect its copyright on the design under copyright law.
The judgment is significant not just because the RTI Act is a revolutionary piece of legislation, but because it dealt with the IP rights of the state.
