The Delhi High Court, has recently held in a judgment dated 10.03.2015 that the Attorney General for India is a ‘Public Authority’ under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thus liable to provide information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. This judgment was delivered after hearing two writ petitions, both of which were filed when information sought from the office of AGI was refused to be given, stating that AGI is not covered under the definition of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.
Both the writ petitions were filed against the order of a full bench decision of the CIC (Central Information Commission) dated 10.12.2012, wherein it was held that AGI was not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act and that the AGI was only a person and could not be considered as an ‘authority’ and therefore fell outside the sweep of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The petitioner in one of the writ petitions, Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, was directly aggrieved by the said CIC order, wherein he had filed an application addressed to the CPIO office of the AGI, seeking certain information, however the same was refused to be accepted, stating that there is no CPIO at the AG’s office. Against this a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the impugned order of CIC dated 10.12.2012 was passed.
The petitioner in the second writ petition, Mr. R. K. Jain, had filed an application seeking certain information from the AGI’s office, however, the same was returned by the office citing the impugned order of the CIC which held that AG is not a public authority under the RTI Act.
The Petitioners relied upon a constitution bench judgment of the Supreme Court B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331 which held that AGI holds a public office. They further contended that the AG had certain privileges and functions, apart from acting as a lawyer of the Government of India; as per Article 88 of the Constitution, the AG has been conferred the right to take part in proceedings of the Parliament; also that the AG performs various statutory duties under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Respondent representing the office of the AGI cited two judgments of the Supreme Court namely, Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagat Ram (1975) 1 SCC 421 and Som Prakash Rekhi vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 449, contending that the AGI cannot be considered as an ‘authority’ since the office of the AGI does not have the power to alter, by his own will directed to that end, the rights, duties, liabilities, or other legal relations, either of himself or of other.
However Justice Vibhu Bakhru of Delhi High Court, declined to apply the above two judgments in deciding this particular case. It was observed as follows:
“I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention, for the reason that the 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.”
It was further observed by the High Court that the above two judgments referred by the respondent, have discussed the ambit of the meaning authority with respect to definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore observed as follows:
“…reference to the definition of an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution is not necessary in determining the scope of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The expression “authority” as used under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, also necessarily takes colour from the context of the said Act. An office that is established under the Constitution of India would clearly fall within the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Even in common parlance the AGI has always been understood as a constitutional authority.”
The judgment discussed Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:
“(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—.
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;”
The judgment further discussed in detail various provisions of law in the Constitution and otherwise, which deal with the office of the AGI, such as Article 76 of the Constitution which provides for the appointment of the Attorney General for India and Article 88 of the Constitution which provides that the AGI shall have the right to speak and take part in the proceedings of the Parliament. Reference was also made to various provisions of the Law Officer (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1987, wherein as per Rule 2(d) the term ‘Law Officer’ incudes the AGI. It discussed various rules which provide for the duties to be performed by a Law Officer, the remuneration to be provided to Law Officers, rules regulating leave, various restrictions to be observed by the Law Officers, etc.
The High Court rejected the contention of the respondent that the office of the AGI is only a skeletal office and consists only of one person i.e. the appointee and his personal staff, and therefore does not have the necessary infrastructure to support the applicability of the Act, and thus would have to act as CPIO as well as Appellate Authority, in view of which it is not feasible and thus cannot be held as ‘public authority’. The High Court observed that this cannot be considered as a reason for excluding the applicability of the Act on a public authority.
The Delhi High Court, thus, set aside the impugned order of the CIC, and held that AGI is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The High Court remanded back the application for consideration by the CIC, in the petition filed by Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal; and in the other petition filed by Mr. R. K. Jain, directed the AGI to reconsider the application.
Full judgment of Delhi High Court can be seen here.
