https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221653 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. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221653 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221653