Delhi High Court issues notice in petition seeking declaration that Attorney General is “public authority” under RTI

Justice GS Sistani of the Delhi High Court issued notice in a writ petition seeking a declaration that the office of the Attorney General of India (AGI) is a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act. The petition has been filed by RTI activist SC Agrawal against the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner wherein it was held that the AGI is not a “public authority” and hence not amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act..In his petition, Agrawal has referred to a contempt petiton involving RK Jain, the Editor of Excise Law Times. Back in June, 2009, Jain had written an editorial highlighting certain irregularities in appointments made to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Contending that the editorial constituted contempt of court, the Indirect Tax Practitioners Association, Bangalore filed a contempt petition against RK Jain. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 a criminal contempt petition may be initiated in the Supreme Court by any individual after receiving the “consent in writing” of the Advocate General. The then-Advocate General evidently granted his consent to the same and a contempt petition was filed in the Supreme Court..On June 13, 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition and imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakhs, holding that Jain was, in fact, a “whistle blower” who had “tried to highlight the malfunctioning of an important institution” such as the CESTAT. Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly held that:.By writing the editorial which must have caused embarrassment to functionaries of the Central Government and CESTAT and even some members of the petitioner-Association but that cannot be dubbed as an attempt to scandalize CESTAT as a body or interfere with the administration of justice. What the respondent projected was nothing but true state of the functioning of CESTAT on administrative side and to some extent on judicial side..Jain filed an RTI application for details on the permission granted by the AGI with respect to filing of contempt proceedings. In December 2012, the CIC held that the AGI did not fall under the ambit of the RTI Act and hence the information sought could not be provided..Arguing that this ruling of the CIC was incorrect, the Petitioner has contended that the government provides accommodation, staff etc to the AGI and that the office of the AGI is “substantially financed” through public funds. Prashant Bhushan, who represented Agrawal, further argued that the question of whether the opinion of the AGI was exempt from disclosure under the RTI, was a separate, independent issue that had no connection with the fact that the AGI fell under the definition of a “public authority”. The AGI was in the news recently for deposing before the Special Court hearing the 2G scam, becoming the first AG to appear as a witness in a criminal case..The AGI was represented by Additional Solicitor General, Siddharth Luthra. The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 18, 2013.