You are on page 1of 2



Investment Division
F. No. 3/1/2019-1ITF

In the matter of

APPEAL No. DOEAF/A/E/20/00249 dated 25/11/2020 PREFFERRED BY

Shri Pushkar Anand... Appellant

CPIO, International Investment Treaties & framework Section, Investment Division

Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance.. .Respondent


1. This order is to the appeal under RTI Act, 2005 filed by Shri Pushkar Anand
against CPIO for not providing information. The applicant has requested for providing
information as sought in his applicationNo. DOEAF/R/E/20/00607 dated 25/11/2020
2. In his application DOEAF/R/E/20/00607 dated 07/10/2020 to the CPIO, the
applicant had sought the following information.
Provide me with a copy of the Arbitral Award rendered by the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in the case of Vodafone v. India () (PCA Case No. 2016-35) filed under the
India-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
In the application, the applicant had also mentioned that:
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that there is a precedent already in
place where the Ministry of Heavy Industries has provided the applicant with a copy of
the Decision on Jurisdiction as a response to the RTI Request No.
DOHIN/R/2019/50071. Apart from the aforesaid, the Ministry of Shipping has also
made public a copy of the Award rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
rendered in the case of Louis Dreyfus Armateurs v. India, as a response to the first
appeal no. DSHIPIAI/2019/60019

3 It has been submitted to me that CPIO has replied to the applicant vide email
dated 8/12/2020 denying the information. The CPIO has mentioned that:
the information can not be provided as the awards of the tribunals are confidential as

per upplicable UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules [Article 32(5)]Junless explicitly agreed

otherwise by the parties of the dispute
Iexamined the matter and to help in examination comments were sought from
Department of Revenue as well (the Department handling the mentioned arbitration
case on behalf of Government of India). It indeed turned out that the in
accordance with
Article 32(5) of the UNCITRAL Rules, the award cannot be made
Parties so agree. There has not been any explicit
public unless the
agreement between Parties. Therefore,
the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act is
applicable in this case. The
information is further exempted from disclosure u/Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act as
well. The disclosure of information would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State,
relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence. The decision is supported
by the following judgements of CIC
a) Second Appeal No. CIC/DSPCE/A/2017/159459: Appellant: Vinod V vs
Department of Space dated 25.09.2018;
Second Appeal No. CICMINES/A/2018/630286, Pushkar Anand v. Ministry
of Mines dated 06.07.2020
6. In view of above, I conclude that the appeal may dismiss. Copy of this order be
given to the parties free of cost.
7. If you are not satisfied with the reply of the appeal. You may prefer a Second
appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 to Central Information Commission, CIC
Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110067.

(Reetu Jan)
Economic Adviser & First Appellate Authority
Department of Economic Affairs
Ministry of Finance
North Block
Tel. No. 011-23095052

1. Shri Pushkar Anand, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi,
New Delhi.
2. Shri Vaibhav Rundwal, Deputy Director & CPIO, Department of Economic
Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.

Copy to: Section Officer (RTI Cell) Ministry of Finance, Department of Economie
Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001

You might also like