Delhi Metro refuses to share pillar design details

Can the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation withhold information about the pillar design of the Metro service citing Intellectual Property Rights?

A full bench of the Central Information Commission will decide the tricky issue of whether the design of the pillar collapsed last year can be made public under the RTI Act or the IPR over the same allow DMRC to withhold it.

Last year in July, a cantilevered bracket of Metro pillar number 67 collapsed near South Delhi's Lajpat Nagar area killing six and injuring more than 15 people. The Delhi Metro had attributed the accident to a "problem in the design" of the pillar claiming they "were trying to rectify it."

"There was a defect in the peer cap which caused the displacement," Delhi Metro spokesperson Anuj Dayal had said.

An RTI applicant Sudhir Vohra sought designs of the pillar number 67 along with structural drawings of both the foundation and the superstructure, including all steel reinforcement details, foundation details, engineering calculations and soil tests from DMRC.

The corporation refused to share any details saying it holds the IPR of the designs and other details and their disclosure would affect the commercial interest of the company which makes it.

The corporation also cited issues of safety and security saying disclosure of design specifications to the general public as well as to the RTI applicant would directly affect the safety and security of the Metro Rail system.

"The DMRC has also been approached by various countries around the world, to provide them the consultancy services as well as to set out the design parameters or the standards with respect to the implementation or the development of the Metro Rail Projects in such countries...any disclosure of the structural design would thus cause irreparable loss to the DMRC," it said.

However the applicant argued that disclosure of the design of the "failed" structure, Pillar no 67, "has no buyers in the market" and the DMRC's argument that disclosure of the structural design is likely to affect its financial interests is "simply hypothetical".

Vohra also submitted that since the matter involves the safety of the travelling public at large, the disclosure would be in the larger public interest. He said design has been replicated in 12 such pillars which DMRC wants to break and erect them fresh with rectification in design.

"The matter raises an important question of law -- protection of the intellectual property rights vis-à-vis the right of the people to know the design of the collapsed pillar under the RTI Act.

This question has serious implications and ramifications for the DMRC as also for the travelling public. Hence, in my opinion, it would be expedient to refer this matter to a Full Bench," Information Commissioner M L Sharma said.