Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
+ W.P.(C) 4288/2012
Decided on- 20th DECEMBER, 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Facts of the Case:
The CPIO, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology issued an order denying the disclosure of information sought by the Respondent, stating that the information was not available with the Department of Telecommunication. The CIC remanded the RTI application back to the CPIO to reconsider the request and directed the CPIO to forward the applications to other ministries that may have the requested information. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner, stating that the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Laws Involved:
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005- (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
Section 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872- Confidential communications with legal advisers. —No one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others.
Issue framed by the Court:
Whether the legal opinion/advice given by the Ld. Solicitor General can be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Courts Judgement and Analysis:
The Court held that the legal opinion/advice given by the Ld. Solicitor General to the Ministry of Government of India/Government Departments is a privileged document under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court further stated that the Ministry of Law and Justice is duty-bound to give a correct legal opinion to other departments and ministries for advancing public interest. The Court concluded that the legal opinion/advice cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The Court relied on Section 129 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which bars a client from disclosing any confidential communications between them and their legal professional adviser.
The Court also referred to Sections 126 to 131 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which provide for non-disclosure of privileged documents between a Lawyer and Client. The Court concluded that the legal opinion/advice given by the Ld. Solicitor General falls under the privileged documents category and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The Court analyzed the provisions of the RTI Act, specifically Section 8(1)(e), which exempts disclosure of information available in a fiduciary relationship. The Court cited the Supreme Court case of CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, which defined a fiduciary relationship as a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the fiduciary relationship. The Court concluded that the legal opinion/advice given by the Ld. Solicitor General to the Ministry of Government of India/Government Departments falls under a fiduciary relationship and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The Writ Petition succeeds and the Order denying disclosure of the legal opinion/advice is set aside.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
