9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 942 - HC - Indian LawsRefusal of information sought by appellants - Whether the Office of Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Held that - term authority as used in the opening sentence of Section 2(h) of the Act cannot be interpreted in a restrictive sense. The expression authority would also include all persons or bodies that have been conferred a power to perform the functions entrusted to them. Merely because the bulk of the duties of the AGI are advisory, the same would not render the office of the AGI any less authoritative than other constitutional functionaries. There are various bodies, which are entrusted with staff functions (i.e. which are advisory in nature) as distinct from line functions . The expression authority as used in Section 2(h) cannot be read as a term to exclude bodies or entities which are, essentially, performing advisory functions. - there would be a practical difficulty as the office of the Attorney General is only a skeletal office which only consists of the appointee and the appointee s is personal staff. In my view, this cannot be considered as a reason for excluding the applicability of the Act on a public authority. - impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider the other contentions urged by the petitioners before the CIC. - Decided in favour of appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Office of Attorney General of India (AGI) is a 'public authority' within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). 2. Whether the Central Information Commission (CIC) correctly held that the AGI is not a public authority. 3. Whether the AGI is obliged to provide information under the RTI Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Office of Attorney General of India (AGI) is a 'public authority' within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act): The core issue is whether the AGI is a 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The petitioners argued that the AGI, established under Article 76 of the Constitution, should be considered a public authority. They contended that the AGI holds a public office and performs duties beyond merely representing the government in legal matters, such as participating in parliamentary proceedings and acting under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondents countered that the AGI is a standalone counsel for the Government of India and does not have the power to alter legal relations, thus not fitting the definition of an 'authority'. 2. Whether the Central Information Commission (CIC) correctly held that the AGI is not a public authority: The CIC had concluded that the AGI is not a public authority, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, which interpreted 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The CIC opined that the AGI, being a single person without the power to affect legal relations, did not qualify as an 'authority'. However, the court found this reasoning flawed, stating that the term 'authority' in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act should not be interpreted restrictively. The court emphasized that the AGI, established under the Constitution, performs statutory and constitutional functions, making it an 'authority' under the RTI Act. 3. Whether the AGI is obliged to provide information under the RTI Act: The court addressed the practical difficulties cited by the respondents, such as the skeletal nature of the AGI's office and the privileged nature of the information. It was noted that if the information sought falls within the exceptions listed in Section 8 of the RTI Act, there would be no obligation to disclose it. The court remanded the matter to the CIC to consider other contentions and directed the AGI to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner, Shri R.K. Jain. Conclusion: The court set aside the CIC's impugned order, holding that the AGI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The matter was remanded to the CIC for further consideration of other contentions, and the AGI was directed to reconsider the RTI application of Shri R.K. Jain. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|
