Attorney General’s office is “public authority” under RTI Act rules Delhi High Court

In a move that could have far reaching consequences towards creating transparency and accountability in the legal system, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the office of the Attorney General would be covered within the purview of Right to Information Act..Outlining relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, RTI Act and Rules framed under the Constitution with regard to Law officers, a Single Judge Bench headed by Justice Vibhu Bakhru said that in light of the nature of functions discharged by the Attorney General, he is deemed to be a constitutional functionary and is liable to discharge responsibilities accruing out of any other law in force..The petition was a challenge to an order of the Central Information Commission wherein it was held that the AG’s office was not a public authority. While examining this issue, the Bench said that the term ‘authority’ as enshrined in the statute ought not to be given a restrictive interpretation and the advisory nature of functions performed by the AGI would not water down his authority as compared to other constitutional functionaries..“The expression “authority” as used in Section 2(h) of the Act would encompass any office that is conferred with any statutory or constitutional power. The office of the AGI is an office established under the Constitution of India; the incumbent appointed to that office discharges functions as provided under the Constitution. Article 76(2) of the Constitution expressly provides that the AGI would perform the duties of a legal character and also discharge the functions conferred on him under the Constitution or any other law in force. Indisputably, the appointee to that office is, by virtue the constitution, vested with the authority to discharge those functions.”.The Bench categorically drew a clear demarcation between judicial pronouncements that examined the scope of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and meaning of the word ‘authority’ under the RTI Act by holding that:-.“….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.”.The Court was pronouncing its order on two connected writ petitions whereby in one matter, the petitioner had filed an application with the office of AGI, seeking information under the RTI Act. The application was returned by the AG’s office with the response that as per the full Bench decision of the CIC, the AGI is not a “public authority”. In the second writ petition, the petitioner had addressed an application to the Central Public Information Officer of the AGI, seeking certain information under the RTI Act which was also returned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, before the CIC which was rejected and the CIC held that since the AGI was only a person, he fell outside the sweep of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The said order was assailed in the writ petition with the petitioners contending that the office of the AGI was established by virtue of Article 76 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, AGI would be answerable to the people of India. It was further contended that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the RTI Act must be interpreted in furtherance of the said fundamental right..The respondent had argued that the AGI was a standalone counsel of the Government of India and thereby occupying a unique position as per the Constitution. It was further pointed out by the government that the functions performed by AGI neither alter the rights of any person nor bind the Government of India; therefore, the AGI could not be construed as an “authority”..The Bench also rejected the contention of the Respondents where they termed ostensible infrastructural handicaps as a feasible reason for excluding the AG’s office from the scope of RTI Act and ordered for the necessary information to be provided to the petitioner whilst remanding the matter back to CIC for consideration of other arguments advanced by the petitioner.