This decision has come about purely because of inexperience of applicant who agitated 8(2) where it was not required.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_16112007_04.pdf CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/01003 dated 16.12.'06 Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 19 Appellant: Shri Milap Choraria Respondents: President's Secretariat Facts of the case: The appellant Shri Milap Choraria of Rohini, Delhi submitted an application on 23.08.2006 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking to know as to what action was taken under Article 102 of the Constitution of India by the President of India on a representation submitted by the appellant through fax message regarding the citizenship of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, MP. : : DECISION 11. We feel that the word "fiduciary relationship" appearing in Section 8(1)(e) has to be read with the objectives of the Act and must be interpreted taking into account what has been spelt out in the preamble of the Act. Sensitivity of the information and necessity to preserve confidentiality should, therefore, be treated as the determining factors for determining the ambit and scope of the term Section 8(1) (e). If read in the context of the Preamble of the Act this will, therefore, justify exemption from disclosure claimed by the CPIO in the instant case.
