While governments oppose in courts the disclosure of Governor's reports to the Centre, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, as Leader of Opposition in Goa Assembly in 2007, had filed an RTI application seeking disclosure of state Governor's report.
The issue arose when political situation in Goa changed and Governor of Goa directing the Chief Minister to prove his majority in the Legislative Assembly.
A resolution of Vote of Confidence was passed in the Assembly and the Speaker made a report to the Governor. In turn, the Governor of Goa sent his report to the Union Home Minister.
In September 2007, Parrikar filed an RTI application seeking disclosure of the report sent by the Governor regarding the political situation in Goa during the period from July 24, 2007 to August 14, 2007 which was declined by the Governor's office.
Following the objection of Governor S C Jamir's office in disclosing the opinion, a legal battle ensued, which went from State Information Commission to the Supreme Court.
Parrikar maintained that disclosure of Governor's opinion to the Union Government under the RTI Act saying the report under Article 356 of the Constitution was made in performance of a constitutional duty and not in a fiduciary capacity.
"The President and the Governor being the public authorities, are amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act and are required to disclose any information when ordered by the PIO or in an appeal by the appellate authority or the Information Commission," his lawyers had argued before Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The State Information Commission had allowed disclosure of
the Governor's opinion. This decision was upheld by a Single judge bench of the Panjim Bench of the Bombay High Court. It was further upheld by the Division Bench (DB) as well.
"Finally in 2012, the Goa Raj Bhavan challenged the DB judgement before the Supreme Court of India making similar claims against disclosure. The matter was initially heard by a Bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari. After he moved on to the International Court of Justice, there has been no effective hearing in this case," Venkatesh Nayak of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) said.
He said during the legal battle, elections were held in Goa and Parrikar was elected Chief Minister.
"Obviously, there was no need to continue with the litigation. CHRI wrote to him recommending that the Raj Bhavan be advised to withdraw the case to prevent wastage of taxpayer's money on a non-issue. We are still waiting for a response to this letter. What is perplexing though is how expectations of a commitment to transparency change with a change in the chair that one occupies," he said.
Nayak said it is difficult to believe that a report made under Article 356 of the Constitution will contain such explosive material that its disclosure in the public domain will be injurious to the public interest.
"So unless it can be shown that disclosing the contents of the Arunachal Pradesh Governor's report(s) under Article 356 can cause harm to any public interest which is recognised as a legitimate ground for refusal of access to information under the RTI Act, it must be placed in the public domain so that people may appreciate the circumstances that led to the decision and also debate its necessity in an informed manner," he said.
