Attorney General of India is Public Authority under the RTI Act -Yet another victory for Whistleblower RK Jain
IN a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court yesterday declared the Attorney General of India as a "Public Authority” under RTI Act. The Full Bench decision of the CIC, has been reversed.
The controversy started in January, 2013 when the legendary editor of ELT, RTI activist and whistle blower RK Jain filed an RTI application with the Attorney General of India seeking information and documents about the Petition filed by the Indirect Tax Bar Association, Bangalore seeking permission of the Attorney General for moving Contempt Petition against him. The information was declined claiming that the Office of Attorney General is outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Supreme Court of India had dismissed the Contempt Petition [See ] filed by the Bar Association against RK Jain and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.2 lakhs out of which Rs. 1 lakh was awarded to Jain. The Contempt Petition was filed for writing editorial about malfunctioning of the CESTAT. The Supreme Court had also found that the Attorney General of India was misled by the said Bar Association, while seeking permission for filing Contempt Petition.
The Attorney General (AGI) returned RK Jain's application stating that as per the full Bench decision of the CIC, the AGI is not a "public authority”. RK Jain is before the High Court challenging the impugned order of the CIC and he also prayed that a direction be issued to the AGI to provide the information as sought for by him.
The Counsel for the AGI argued that:
1. AGI is a standalone counsel of the Government of India and is in a sui generis position under the Constitution of India.
2. 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”.
3. AGI does not have the necessary infrastructure to support the applicability of the RTI Act inasmuch as, the AGI is a single person office and, therefore, would have to act as a CPIO as well as the Appellate Authority. Since the same is not feasible, the AGI cannot be held as ‘Public Authority'.
The High Court observed,
1. In addition to acting as legal advisor and performing duties of a legal character that may be assigned, the AGI is also obliged to discharge the functions as may be conferred under any law for the time being in force.
2. By virtue of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972, the Supreme Court may take an action for criminal contempt on a motion made by the AGI or the Solicitor General. Thus, the AGI also has the right to move a motion in case of a criminal contempt, before the Supreme Court.
3. The AGI is also an ex officio member of the Bar Council of India and is also considered as a leader of the Bar.
4. It has been contended that there would be a practical difficulty as the office of the Attorney General is only a skeletal office which only consists of the appointee and the appointee's personal staff. This cannot be considered as a reason for excluding the applicability of the Act on a public authority.
The High Court set aside the order of the CIC and directed the AGI to reconsider the application filed by RK Jain.