Constitutional protection of ministerial advice bars RTI disclosure of Presidential correspondence and related deliberations.

Article 74(2) was treated as a constitutional bar protecting ministerial advice to the President and the deliberative process by which it is formed, so the Right to Information Act, 2005 could not override that protection through public interest balancing. The Central Information Commission was held unable to call for or examine correspondence forming part of that protected constitutional exchange, because it had no authority to compel production of constitutionally immune material. The Court also held that the requested correspondence was not separable supporting material but part of the protected advice itself. The writ petition succeeded, the Commission's order was set aside, and disclosure was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Central Information Commission could call for and examine correspondence exchanged between the President and the Prime Minister in order to decide disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) whether Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India bars disclosure of such correspondence and overrides the disclosure regime under the Right to Information Act, 2005; (iii) whether the requested correspondence was merely supporting material or formed part of the protected advice.

Issue (i): whether the Central Information Commission could call for and examine correspondence exchanged between the President and the Prime Minister in order to decide disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The Commission's power under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot extend to compelling production of material that is constitutionally immune from inquiry. The correspondence in question concerned deliberations within the constitutional executive and, on the Court's view, could not be treated as ordinary material open to inspection by the Commission for deciding public interest disclosure. The Commission had no constitutional authority equivalent to that exercised by constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The Commission could not call for or peruse the correspondence.

Issue (ii): whether Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India bars disclosure of such correspondence and overrides the disclosure regime under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: Article 74(2) was held to protect the secrecy of advice tendered by Ministers to the President and the deliberative process by which that advice is formed. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was held not to override the Constitution or to dilute a constitutional bar by reference to statutory exemptions. Articles 78 and 361 were also treated as reinforcing the constitutional immunity attached to these communications. The Court rejected the view that the Commission could balance public interest so as to override the constitutional protection.

Conclusion: Article 74(2) barred disclosure and the Right to Information Act, 2005 could not override that bar.

Issue (iii): whether the requested correspondence was merely supporting material or formed part of the protected advice.

Analysis: The Court distinguished authorities where disclosure of the material on which advice was based had been permitted, holding that those cases concerned different facts and did not govern correspondence that itself embodied the protected deliberations. The material placed before the President or exchanged in the course of the consultative process was treated, in the present context, as falling within the protected class rather than as separable, unprotected background material.

Conclusion: The correspondence was treated as protected advice and not as disclosable supporting material.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the order of the Central Information Commission was set aside, and the information request was rejected because the correspondence was constitutionally immune from disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 74(2) creates a constitutional bar against inquiry into ministerial advice to the President, and the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be used to compel disclosure of correspondence falling within that protected deliberative sphere.

---