Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court affirmed that legal advice provided by the Solicitor General of India to the Government of India and other government departments is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act of 2005 (RTI Act).

Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized the fiduciary relationship between the Solicitor General and the government, citing the Law Officer (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987, and Supreme Court judgments.

Court held that the Solicitor General is obligated to act in good faith for the benefit of the Union and other departments, where a fiduciary relationship is established based on trust and reliance by the beneficiary on the Solicitor General.

Justice Prasad, in setting aside a December 5, 2011 order by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) in response to a case filed by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, supported the argument put forth by the Union of India's counsel.

The CIC had directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Ministry of Law and Justice to provide a copy of the 2007 note or opinion by the then Solicitor General of India to the Department of Telecommunications.

The case pertained to information on various cases filed by the Cellular Operators Association of India related to the allotment of 2G spectrum before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and the Delhi High Court.

Justice Prasad noted that while Section 8(2) of the RTI Act allows the provision of exempted information if it serves the public interest and enhances accountability, Agrawal failed to demonstrate such public interest in this case.

Court emphasized that without a clear showing of public interest, the information sought by Agrawal, exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, could not be compelled under Section 8(2).

"The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to what is in the public interest that would be subserved so as to invoke the provisions of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. In the absence of any public interest, the information sought for by the respondent, which is exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act," it said. 

Consequently, court set aside the CIC order and disposed of the plea.

Case Title: Union of India and Anr v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal