New Delhi: The Indian Railways has informed the Central Information Commission (CIC) that the methodology and formulae used to determine passenger train fares are considered a “trade secret” and intellectual property, and thus cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.This statement was made in response to a prior RTI appeal, which was dismissed by the CIC, seeking detailed information regarding base fare calculations, and other factors which influence it such as dynamic pricing, seasonal variations, and the impact of Tatkal bookings, with specific reference to the Paschim Superfast Express.The RTI application, filed on January 25, 2024, requested the Railways to outline the components and parameters, dynamic pricing mechanisms, seasonal variations or other relevant factors that influence ticket pricing. In response, the chief public information officer (CPIO) of the Indian Railway Board claimed that the fares varied on the basis of the facilities provided to passengers. However, the CPIO denied to disclose the detailed classification algorithm and pricing methodology, stating that it fell under the umbrella of “trade secret and intellectual property rights,” which could not be revealed in the light of public interest.“In so far as classification and methodology of fare fixation of different classes is concerned, the policy mechanism falls in the domain of trade secret/intellectual property rights and, as such its disclosure is not considered appropriate in public interest,” the CPIO stated.Moreover, the CPIO mentioned Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which permits exemption for information in cases concerning threat to national security, trade secrets, and personal privacy, and noted that a similar interpretation has been previously upheld by the CIC. “It is a known fact that the Indian Railways are run as a commercial utility and at the same time it being an instrumentality of state are required to discharge various social obligations in national interest,” the Railways added.The commission observed that the public information officer had already given access to all non-exempt information and general principles of fare policy, and was not obligated to present and interpret data beyond existing records. Finding no apparent infirmity in the reply and the marked absence of the appellant during the hearing, information commissioner Swagat Das underlined that no further intervention was required and disposed the appeal.