Info on extension of LS Secretary General's tenure not exempted under RTI, says HC

The Delhi High Court has held that information on extension of tenure of Secretary General of Lok Sabha is not exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act as it is granted by the Speaker, head of administrative wing of the House.

The court said parliamentary privilege is not a "catch-all phrase" to claim blanket protection from disclosure of information that is connected with a legislative body.

Justice A J Bhambhani directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to give the information to RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal on queries relating to the extension of tenure of the then Secretary General of the Lok Sabha in 2011.

The information was earlier denied to the RTI applicant on the ground that it would amount to 'breach of privilege' of Parliament and the information was exempted under section 8(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act.

He had sought complete and detailed information with related correspondence or file-notings on action taken on letter of then Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj written to the then Speaker of Lok Sabha Meira Kumar against granting an extension of one year to Secretary General of the House T K Vishwanathan.

The information was denied by the Central Public Information Officer of Lok Sabha Secretariat on the ground that communications and consultation by the Speaker with functionaries of the House, in this case the Leader of Opposition, in discharge of constitutional duties may cause breach of parliamentary privilege.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) had also dismissed Agarwal's appeal and upheld the CPIO's order against which he appealed in the high court.

Justice Bhambhani, however, said, "In the circumstances, I am of the view that information in relation to consultation and communications that went-on between the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House and the Speaker in relation to the extension of the Secretary General's term enjoys no exemption from disclosure, much less on the ground of parliamentary privilege; and ought to have been disclosed."