Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (3) TMI 942

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1665/2013 has also challenged a letter dated 29.01.2013 issued by the office of AGI refusing the information sought for by the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts leading to the present petitions are as follows:- 3.1 Shri R.K. Jain, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1665/2013 filed an application dated 07.01.2013 with the office of AGI, seeking information under the RTI Act. In response to the said application, the Office of AGI returned the petitioner's application under the cover of its letter dated 29.01.2013, stating that as per the full Bench decision of the CIC, the AGI is not a "public authority". Shri R.K. Jain has, therefore, challenged the impugned order dated 10.12.2012 and also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent to provide the information as sought for by him. 3.2 Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1041/2013 filed an application dated 15.11.2011, addressed to the CPIO office of the AGI, seeking certain information under the RTI Act. It is asserted that the said office of the AGI declined to accept the said application; the speed post envelope containing the said application was returned wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... people of India. It was further contended that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the RTI Act must be interpreted in furtherance of the said fundamental right. 7. The petitioners further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in B.P.Singhal v. Union of India: (2010) 6 SCC 331 to contend that the AGI holds a public office. It was further contended that apart from acting as a lawyer for the Government of India, the AGI also has certain other privileges and functions; under Article 88 of the Constitution of India, the AGI has the right to take part in the proceedings of the Parliament. The AGI also performs certain statutory duties under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 8. The respondent disputes the contentions urged by the petitioners. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the AGI is a standalone counsel of the Government of India and is in a sui generis position under the Constitution of India. It is contended that 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". The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce during the pleasure of the President, and shall receive such remuneration as the President may determine." 12. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be disputed that the office of Attorney General for India is established under the Constitution of India. The conditions of service of the AGI are governed under the said Rules which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of Rule 2(d) of the said Rules, the expression 'Law Officer' includes the AGI. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for the duties of a Law Officer and reads as under:- "5. Duties - It shall be the duty of a Law Officer - (a) to give advice to the Government of India upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time, be referred or assigned to him by the Government of India. (b) to appear, whenever required, in the Supreme Court or in any High Court on behalf of the Government of India in cases (including suits, writ petitions, appeal and other proceedings) in which the Government of India is concerned as a party or is otherwise interested; (c) to represent the Government of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vernment has a preponderating interest; (b) advice any party against the Government of India or a Public Sector Undertaking, or in cases in which he is likely to be called upon to advise, or appear for, the Government of India or a Public Sector Undertaking; (c) defend an accused person in a criminal prosecution, without the permission of the Government of India; or (d) accept appointment to any office in any company or corporation without the permission of the Government of India; (e) advise any Ministry or Department of Government of India or any statutory organization or any Public Sector Undertaking unless the proposal or a reference in this regard is received through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs." (2). Where a Law Officer appears or does other work on behalf of bodies of Union of India such as the Election Commission, the Union Public Service Commission etc. he shall only be entitled to fees on the scales mentioned in clauses (c) of sub - rule (1) of rule 7." 15. Article 88 of the Constitution of India expressly provides that "every Minister and the Attorney-General of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ead as a term to exclude bodies or entities which are, essentially, performing advisory functions. 22. In my view, the expression "authority" as used in Section 2(h) of the Act would encompass any office that is conferred with any statutory or constitutional power. The office of the AGI is an office established under the Constitution of India; the incumbent appointed to that office discharges functions as provided under the Constitution. Article 76(2) of the Constitution expressly provides that the AGI would perform the duties of a legal character and also discharge the functions conferred on him under the Constitution or any other law in force. Indisputably, the appointee to that office is, by virtue the constitution, vested with the authority to discharge those functions. 23. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in IFCI Limited v. Ravinder Balwani: (175) 2010 DLT 84 had expressly held that "Given the fact that there is a specific definition of what constitutes a 'public authority' for the purposes of the RTI Act, there is no warrant for incorporating the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution is likely to be....