In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has determined that legal advice provided by the Solicitor General of India to the Central Government is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This decision, articulated by Justice Subramonium Prasad, underscores the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the Solicitor General and the Government of India.
The Court’s judgment came while setting aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in 2011. The CIC had directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Union Law Ministry to provide a copy of the note or opinion given in 2007 by the then Solicitor General of India to the Department of Telecommunications concerning various cases filed by the Cellular Operators Association of India regarding the allotment of 2G spectrum.
Justice Prasad observed that the relationship between the Solicitor General and the Government of India is akin to that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary. He stated,
“This Court finds no infirmity with the argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the advice tendered by the Ld. Solicitor General to the Union of India and other various government departments is done in the nature of a fiduciary, and hence the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act has been invoked.”
The Court emphasized that the Solicitor General is duty-bound to work for the benefit of the Union and other departments in good faith, where trust and reliance by the beneficiary upon the Solicitor General exist. This fiduciary relationship forms the basis for the exemption from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Also read-Justice Gangopadhyay Advocates For CBI Police Stations In West Bengal (lawchakra.in)
Furthermore, the Court addressed the application of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which allows for the disclosure of exempted information if it serves the public interest. Justice Prasad noted,
“Just by simply stating that it is in public interest to disclose the information would not be sufficient unless weighty reasons are given as to how the information which is exempted from being provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act should be provided and as to how the public interest would outweigh the harm to the protected interest.”
The petitioner, Subhash Chandra Agrawal, had not demonstrated how the public interest would be served by procuring the details of the Solicitor General’s advice. As a result, the Court found no compelling reason to invoke the provisions of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act in this case.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s ruling establishes a crucial precedent in balancing the right to information of citizens against the protected interests of public authorities and functionaries. This decision highlights the delicate balance between transparency and the need to protect sensitive legal communications between the government and its legal advisors.
Also read-Retired Bombay HC Chief Justice Ramesh Dhanuka Loses ₹50K in Cyber Fraud Case – LawChakra
