TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds privilege under Indian Evidence Act, sets aside summons by Information Commission</h1> <h3>The Superintendent, Office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai-104 Versus The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Kamadhenu Chennai and M. Sivaraj</h3> The court held that the information sought by the second respondent was privileged under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act and could not be disclosed ... - Issues Involved:1. Challenge to summons issued by Tamil Nadu Information Commission.2. Entitlement to information under the RTI Act.3. Privileged communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.4. Public Prosecutor's duty to disclose information.5. Overriding effect of RTI Act over other laws.Summary:1. Challenge to Summons Issued by Tamil Nadu Information Commission:The writ petition was filed by the Superintendent of the office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, challenging the summons issued by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission. The summons was based on a complaint by the second respondent seeking information under the RTI Act.2. Entitlement to Information under the RTI Act:The second respondent initially applied to the Additional Public Prosecutor for records related to an FIR and a judgment. The petitioner's office informed the second respondent that he was not entitled to such information, particularly the opinion tendered by the Public Prosecutor, as it was privileged. The second respondent then approached the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, which directed the petitioner's office to furnish the information.3. Privileged Communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act:The petitioner contended that the information sought was privileged communication protected by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits disclosure of any communication made to a lawyer by their client without the client's express consent. The court emphasized that the relationship between the Public Prosecutor and the Government is akin to a lawyer-client relationship, making the information privileged.4. Public Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Information:The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., which held that the Public Prosecutor holds a public office and is subject to statutory duties. However, the court also noted that the Public Prosecutor is bound by professional conduct rules, which prohibit breaching the obligation imposed by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.5. Overriding Effect of RTI Act over Other Laws:The court examined whether the RTI Act overrides the privilege conferred by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. It concluded that Section 22 of the RTI Act does not override Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also referred to the Freedom of Information Act, 2000 (UK), which exempts information covered by legal professional privilege from disclosure.Conclusion:The court held that the information sought by the second respondent was privileged and could not be disclosed without the express consent of the State of Tamil Nadu. The impugned summons issued by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The court emphasized that the Commission must consider whether disclosure of information is barred under any law before issuing such notices.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
