Bar
& Bench: Mumbai: Wednesday, 10 February 2016.
With the
Attorney General’s office under the RTI scanner, the Union Government told the
Delhi High Court that the AG’s office, while performing duties under the
Constitution, was not performing a public function.
The submissions
came in the background of an appeal filed by the Union Law Ministry against a
Single Bench order of the Delhi High Court which had held that the AG’s office
was a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act.
Standing
Counsel for the Union Government, Jasmeet Singh argued that the AG shared a
fiduciary relationship with the Government and his duty was restricted to
advising and defending the Goverment’s actions in Court.
“The AG’s
office is very different from any other public office firstly because of the [fiduciary]
relationship he shares with the government and also because of the nature of
[confidential] information that rests with him.”
ASG Sanjay
Jain, who built upon his submissions from the last hearing, argued that the
judgment of the Single Bench had not referred to Section 4 of the RTI Act,
which listed out certain attributes of public authorities.
“The
definition of a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act draws parallel
flavor from Section 4. As much as I agree with the learned judge that the AG’s
office is contemplated under the Constitution and that the Constitution itself
defines the work of the Attorney General, it should additionally be noted that
Section 4 provisions must also transpose themselves with the scheme of Article
76 (2) because the Constitution itself cannot be ignored.
By no stretch
of imagination, does Section 4(1)(a) includes the office of the AG.”
The Bench
seemed to agree with the submissions made by Jain and Singh when it observed
that ‘it was apparent that the AG’s functions had to be discharged by him, on
his own’ and that he could not delegate his duties.
After hearing
the Union’s submissions at length, the Bench adjourned the matter to February
15.
.JPG)
.JPG)
