Attorney General doesn't come under RTI: Delhi HC

Image
IANS New Delhi
Last Updated : Feb 03 2017 | 4:32 PM IST

The Delhi High Court on Friday ruled that the office of the Attorney General of India does not come within the ambit of the Right to Infomation Act, saying its "predominant function" is to give advice on legal matters to the government.

A division bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath said that the Attorney General appears in court on behalf of the government of India and has fiduciary relationship with the government and his opinions cannot be put in the public domain.

The court set aside a March 2015 verdict by a single judge, which said the office of the top law officer was answerable to public under the transparency law as he performs public functions and his appointment is governed by the Constitution.

"Essentially, the function being that akin to an advocate of the government of India, he is in a fiduciary relationship with the government of India and cannot put in the public domain his opinions or the materials forwarded to him by the government of India," a bench headed by the High Court Chief Justice said while reversing the earlier order.

The judgment added: "The essential services provided by the AG are to advice the government on legal matters and perform other duties such of a legal character as may be assigned. The AG is not a functionary reposed with any administrative or other authority which effect the rights or liabilities of persons."

Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, any government office or authority or any organisation substantially funded by the government comes under the purview of the transparency law.

The court's order came on appeals filed by the government against the single-judge order.

Two pleas were filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal and R.K. Jain before the single judge, seeking to declare the Attorney General's office as a public authority under the RTI Act.

One of the pleas had also challenged the Central Information Commission's decision holding that the office was not covered under the RTI Act.

--IANS

gt/tsb/vt

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Feb 03 2017 | 4:22 PM IST

Next Story