New Delhi: The Indian Railways has told the Central Information Commission (CIC) that its methodology for calculating passenger train fares constitutes a “trade secret” and falls under commercial confidence, making it exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission accepted the Railways’ position and dismissed an appeal that sought detailed information on how ticket fares are determined, including the role of dynamic pricing and the impact of Tatkal bookings.

The decision came in response to an RTI application that asked for a comprehensive explanation of the base fare calculation mechanism used by Indian Railways, both in general and with specific reference to the Paschim Superfast Express. The applicant had sought clarity on how fares are fixed, what variables influence price fluctuations, and how premium elements such as Tatkal charges affect the final ticket cost.

In its reply to the CIC, accessed by PTI, the Railway Board argued that while broad principles of fare fixation are publicly known, the detailed methodology, classification logic and internal calculations used to arrive at fares are protected information. According to the Railways, such disclosures could compromise its commercial interests and therefore fall under the exemptions listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act.

The Railway Board explained that passenger fares are determined on a class-based system, with variations arising from the type of coach, level of comfort, onboard facilities and services offered. For instance, differences in fares between sleeper class, AC three-tier, AC two-tier and executive classes are linked to amenities, maintenance costs and service standards. However, beyond these general explanations, the Railways maintained that the internal framework used to fix prices cannot be shared.

“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 and intellectual property rights,” the Railway Board stated in its response. It added that such information is explicitly exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act, which protects sensitive data including trade secrets, commercial confidence, national security-related information and personal privacy.

Section 8 of the RTI Act provides public authorities with specific exemptions from mandatory disclosure, particularly when the information sought could harm competitive positions or reveal commercially sensitive strategies. The Railways relied on this provision to justify its refusal to share detailed pricing formulas.

Railway officials further cited earlier orders of the Central Information Commission that had upheld the non-disclosure of fare calculation methodologies. They argued that Indian Railways, despite being a government-run entity, operates in a complex environment where it must balance commercial considerations with public service obligations.

“It is a known fact that the Indian Railways are run as a commercial utility and at the same time, being an instrumentality of the State, are required to discharge various social obligations in national interest,” the Railways said. This dual role, officials argued, necessitates flexibility in pricing and operational decisions, which could be undermined if sensitive internal methodologies were placed in the public domain.

The Railways also sought to distinguish itself from private enterprises while still asserting the need for confidentiality. The Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Railway Board said that disclosure of detailed pricing mechanisms was not justified in public interest, particularly because any surplus or profit generated by the Railways does not accrue to individuals or shareholders.

“Disclosure of pricing-related information is not justified in public interest, as profit, if any, is distributed or transferred to the common man and is not retained for the benefit of personal gain as in the case of private enterprise,” the CPIO said. According to the Railways, revenues are reinvested into infrastructure, safety upgrades, subsidies for passengers and socially important but economically unviable services.

The appeal before the CIC had questioned the lack of transparency in railway fare determination, especially at a time when passengers often complain about rising ticket prices, dynamic fare fluctuations and premium charges during peak travel periods. The applicant argued that greater disclosure would help passengers understand why fares vary and how pricing decisions are made.

However, the Commission noted that the public information officer had already provided all information that was legally disclosable under the RTI framework. This included general principles governing railway rating policies and the class-based structure of fares. The CIC observed that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to create new information, interpret data or provide explanations beyond what is available on record.

The Commission also took note of the fact that the appellant did not appear during the hearing to press the case further or rebut the Railways’ arguments. In the absence of any substantive challenge to the reply submitted by the Railway Board, the Commission found no grounds for intervention.

Information Commissioner Swagat Das, in his order, stated that there was no infirmity in the response provided by the Railways. He concluded that the appeal did not merit further consideration and disposed of the case accordingly.

The decision highlights an ongoing tension between transparency demands under the RTI Act and claims of commercial confidentiality by public sector entities. While Indian Railways is one of the largest public service providers in the country, it also operates in a competitive transport environment that includes airlines, road transport and private operators. The Railways has repeatedly argued that revealing detailed pricing strategies could affect its operational flexibility and market position.

At the same time, the ruling is likely to fuel debate among transparency advocates, who argue that fare-setting in a taxpayer-funded public service should be open to greater scrutiny. Critics often point out that passengers have limited visibility into how base fares are fixed, why prices vary across trains and routes, and how dynamic pricing models impact affordability.

For now, the CIC’s decision reinforces the Railways’ long-standing position that while general fare principles can be shared, the precise formulas and internal methodologies used to calculate ticket prices are protected as trade secrets. Unless challenged successfully in a higher forum or addressed through policy changes, such information is likely to remain outside the scope of the RTI Act.

The case also sets a precedent for similar RTI queries in the future, signalling that public sector bodies performing commercial functions may continue to invoke Section 8 exemptions to shield sensitive operational details from disclosure, even as they remain accountable for broader policy decisions and public service outcomes.