Pecuniary interests of members of parliament in various companies should be made public as it would help people keep "a better watch" on them when they are dealing with legislative matters relating to such firms, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has held.

Chief information commissioner Satyananda Mishra, while deciding on a petition, said disclosure of such information is in "larger public interest".

The case relates to an RTI application filed by Anil Bairwal of Association of Democratic Reforms seeking to know from the Rajya Sabha secretariat the details of "remunerative directorship, regular remunerative activity, shareholding of controlling?nature, paid consultancy and profession engagement" of the members of the House.

These details are submitted by the MPs under 'Register of Members' Interest' under Rule 293 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States.

Bairwal also sought to know the list of members who have not submitted the form and reasons for not doing so.

The Rajya Sabha refused to provide details citing a decision of its Ethics Committee which opined that the information was held in fiduciary capacity and should not be disclosed to public under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

The secretariat said since the disclosure of information has no relationship with to any public activity or interest.

Rejecting the arguments, Mishra said, "The knowledge among the citizens about the pecuniary interest of MPs in various companies and other business establishments would help them to keep a better watch on their representatives when they would be dealing with policy and other legislative matter affecting the interests of such companies and business interests." .

According to the section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act cited by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, information held in fiduciary capacity can be withheld from disclosure unless it serves the larger public interest.

The Commission said information sought by Bairwal would serve larger public interest hence it overrides the objections raised by Rajya Sabha in its denial.

"It is the standard practice that people in positions where they can make decisions or influence policies affecting the financial and other interests of companies should recuse themselves from such a process, if they themselves have an interest in those specific companies or the class of enterprises, to avoid conflict of interest. This should equally applicable to the legislators," Mishra said.

Mishra said if the legislators have any stated interest in some companies or business houses, as directors or substantial shareholders, their participation in any legislative or decision-making activity affecting the interests of such companies and business houses would be keenly watched by the people.

Mishra said just like declaration of private assets by those contesting elections, the disclosure of pecuniary interests of MPs should not be construed as invasion of individual privacy and directed the information to be made public.