Times of India: New
Delhi: Friday, April 05, 2013.
The Delhi
High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Attorney General on a plea that the
office of the law officer be declared a "public authority" under the
RTI Act as the appointment is according to the Constitution.
Justice G S
Sistani gave six weeks to the AG to reply while hearing an appeal filed by
Delhi-based RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal against a decision of the
Central Information Commission (CIC) that the office of AG doesn't fall under
the RTI Act.
Initiating
the arguments, Aggarwal's counsel Prashant Bhushan said the question that what
information can be given (by AG) to information seeker is different from the
plea that the office be declared a public office under the RTI. "Instead
of seeking information from the Attorney General's office, a person may seek
information from the persons (government and its departments) to whom advice
has been rendered," the court said, adding it has also been argued that AG
has a lawyer-client relationship with the government and his advice is
protected against revelation under the law.
Bhushan said
the issue as to whether the office of AG falls under the RTI is "different
from the issue as to what information may or may not be given under the
RTI".
The court
then asked Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the
AG's office, to file the reply and fixed the matter for hearing on August 18.
Earlier, the Attorney General had opposed the plea on various grounds including
that the advice rendered by him to the state and its authorities is protected
under the law. The ASG had also said that the AG has a "fiduciary" (a
relation of trust) with the government and moreover, "there is no
establishment attached with the office of the AG".
In his plea,
Aggarwal said that any attempt to keep the office of AG out of the RTI Act
would defeat the fundamental right of citizens to get information on a public
authority. "The interpretation as given by the CIC would defeat the
citizens' fundamental right to information to hold the state and all its
instrumentalities to account." The activist said even authorities
established under any law or under any notification are covered by the
definition of public authority.
The petition
contended that as far as AG at the Centre and advocate generals at the
state-level are concerned, they are public authorities by virtue of being
"authority or body or institution of self-government established or
constituted by or under the Constitution" as required by the Sec 2(h) of
RTI Act.
The petition
said, "If the office of Attorney General is not established under the
Constitution, then no office or post can be said to be established under the
Constitution within the meaning of Sec 2(h) of the RTI Act, defeating the entire
object of the Act itself that effectuates the fundamental right to know of the
citizens of this country. Attorney General can and does attend Cabinet Meetings
and be present in Parliament," the petition said adding that in several
states Advocate Generals are already declared as public-authority.
"If
Advocate Generals in states are public-authority as defined under RTI Act,
there is no reason that Attorney General may not be a public-authority
likewise."
The high
constitutional office of the Attorney General cannot be allowed to use
technical arguments to defeat the fundamental right of the citizens, it said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
