{"id":204543,"date":"2018-10-30T15:45:51","date_gmt":"2018-10-30T10:15:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=204543"},"modified":"2018-11-29T15:26:23","modified_gmt":"2018-11-29T09:56:23","slug":"cic-pulls-up-hockey-india-for-non-disclosure-of-expenditure-and-lawyers-fee-issues-show-cause-notice-stating-that-sports-cannot-be-used-for-profit-generation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/30\/cic-pulls-up-hockey-india-for-non-disclosure-of-expenditure-and-lawyers-fee-issues-show-cause-notice-stating-that-sports-cannot-be-used-for-profit-generation\/","title":{"rendered":"CIC pulls up Hockey India for non-disclosure of expenditure and lawyers\u2019 fee; issues show cause notice stating that sports cannot be used for profit-generation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Central Information Commission (CIC):<\/strong> A Single-Judge Bench comprising of Central Information Commissioner Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu issued a show-cause notice to Hockey India for not disclosing the information sought by the appellant.<\/p>\n

BJP leader Kirti Azad filed an RTI application in the year 2015 seeking details of Hockey India League\u2019s (HIL) registration certificate, details of expenditure, sponsorship, commission paid for getting sponsorships, and expenditure incurred in availing legal services along with the names of lawyers engaged by Hockey India (HI) and HIL in the last 2 years. Respondent responded stating that HIL is organized under the aegis of the Hockey India and the websites of HI and HIL contain the information sought. Dissatisfied with the response, appellant filed a first appeal which was responded by the first appellate authority stating that the information pertaining to sponsorships, fee paid to lawyers, etc fell within the domain of confidential information and hence due it could not be disclosed. Thereafter, the appellant moved to CIC which directed respondent to disclose the desired information. But the respondent moved to Delhi High Court challenging the said order, which remanded the matter back to CIC for fresh consideration. Hence, the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Respondent contended that the RTI application was vitiated by private motives aimed at targeting a cabinet minister. However, this submission was dismissed holding that motives behind filing an RTI are irrelevant and the burden lies on the public authority to prove the invocation of an exception for denial of information.<\/p>\n

Further, respondent averred that since the information pertaining to sponsors, commission, legal expenses, and lawyers engaged, etc. was confidential in nature; they could submit the same in sealed cover. Further, throughout the proceedings, respondent maintained the position that HIL is not connected to HI and thus it cannot be obliged to disclose information about HIL.<\/p>\n

After hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, the Commission made the following observations:<\/p>\n