Delhi HC judgment excluding Attorney General from RTI ambit challenged in Supreme Court

Noted RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal has approached the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court judgment, which had held that the office of the Attorney General of India is not a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act, 2000..The appeal challenges the verdict dated February 3 of this year, delivered by a Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath. The Bench had ruled that the office of the Attorney General is not a ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and thus, not liable to provide access to information as per the RTI Act..In doing so, it had reversed the March 2015 decision of Justice Vibhu Bakhru..The appeal has been drafted and settled by Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva..In the appeal filed in the Supreme Court, Agrawal has contended that the Attorney General for India is a position/office established under Article 76 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that Section 2(h) of the RTI Act clearly includes all authorities or bodies established or created under the Constitution or any statute or any notification, and also also includes NGOs which have been substantially financed by the Government. Hence, he contends, the office of the AG is within the ambit of RTI..The petition states,.“Office of Attorney General of India has got its establishment, under Article 76 of the Constitution of India, through declaration made by People of India, in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, who solemnly resolved to adopt, enact and give unto themselves the Constitution of India. Further People of India gave unto themselves a right to information under Article 19(1)(a) which has been recognised as a foundation of a democratic society.”.Agrawal has placed reliance on the judgment in BP Singhal v. Union of India, which held,.“…the office of AGI is a Public Institution was observed in the matter of B.P. Singhal Vs. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331, whereby the Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court headed by then Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice P. Sathasivam held that, ‘Attorney General holds a Public Office’.”.He has also submitted that the reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court that the duty of an Attorney General is akin to the duty performed by an advocate/Senior Advocate is wrong..“Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi erred in keeping the function of Office of Attorney General of India limited only to give advice upon legal matters, to appear in Court as stated i.e. perform the duties akin to an Advocate/Senior Advocate.”.Regarding whether the opinions and advice given by the AG falls under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, Agrawal has submitted,.“if any Public Authority, defined under Section-2(h) of the RTI Act, advises or give opinions shall be treated as information. In this regard, if information sought falls within the exceptions enshrined in Section-8 & 9 of the Act, there would be no obligation to disclose the same. The expression “public authority” as used in Section-2(h) cannot be read as a term to exclude bodies or entities which are, essentially, performing advisory functions.”.Placing reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors, the appellant has submitted,.“…transparency rule of RTI Act eclipses all the rules relating to confidentiality, secrecy and privilege contained in any other law for the time being in force which does also include the provisions of Privileges contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”.Read the Delhi High Court judgment below.