Delhi High Court: The Solicitor General's opinion is free from the RTI for the Center

 Delhi High Court: The Solicitor General's opinion is free from the RTI for the Center

Delhi High Court: The Solicitor General's opinion is free from the RTI for the Center

In 2010, RTI applicant Subhash Chandra Aggarwal made an application under the RTI Act, requesting specific facts and information on the distribution of the 2G band/spectrum.

It says that the Central Government, which depends on and trusts the Solicitor General of India, has a responsibility to act in its best interests.

The 2011 ruling from the CIC requiring it to reveal the 2007 opinion of the Solicitor General of India in a number of lawsuits brought by the Cellular Operators Association of India over the distribution of 2G spectrum has been overturned by the Delhi High Court. The court decided that unless there are "strong reasons" to demonstrate that its publication is in the public interest, such material is excluded from the Right to material (RTI) Act's requirements.

In response to the Center's appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruling, Justice Subramaniam Prasad ruled that the Solicitor General and the Government of India have a fiduciary as well as beneficiary relationship, as defined under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. Opinions may only be disclosed "if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage that to the protected interest," according to RTI Act Section 8(2).

The HC said that the CIC ruling in this instance cannot be upheld since the RTI petitioner has not shown a public interest. In a recent order, the court stated that "merely stating that disclosure of knowledge is in the public interest will not suffice as long as cogent reasons are shown as to why the information which is prohibited from being provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act "How the public fascination outweighs the harm to the protected interest."

"The argument put forth by the counsel representing the petitioner (Centre) that the advice provided by the Solicitor General to the Union of India and several other Government Departments is of a fiduciary nature is accepted by this Court, and as a result, it concludes that under section 8(1) of the RTI Act, "The exception to (e) has been applied." The court ruled that law officers' primary responsibility, as stipulated in the regulations governing their appointment, is to provide legal advice to the Government of India. They are not allowed to provide legal advice to any other party. permission from the Indian government.

It says that the Central Government, which depends on and trusts the Solicitor General of India, has a responsibility to act in its best interests. As to the court's ruling, the RTI Act aims to enable individuals to request information from any public entity and uphold the fundamental values of genuine democracy by holding public bodies responsible to the people. Section 8 offers "exemption from disclosure of information," which suspends the duty of disclosing information under several headings and only applies to the information that is exempted. Nevertheless, it makes clear that not all information may be given. is able to be offered in the public good. Large.

When disclosing material that is exempt from section 8 due to public interest, care must be taken to make sure that the public interest outweighs any potential damage to the protected interests of public officials or employees. The Court said that in order to properly balance a citizen's right to information with those of different State employees, it must make sure that the information is provided (if required). "The writ petition succeeds and the order dated 05.12.2011 is cancelled," the ruling said.

In 2010, RTI applicant Subhash Chandra Aggarwal made an application under the RTI Act, requesting specific facts and information on the distribution of the 2G band/spectrum. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice was instructed by the CIC in December 2011 to provide a copy of the 2007 note/opinion that the then-Solicitor General of India had sent to the Department of Telecommunications. Regarding the several lawsuits pertaining to the distribution of 2G spectrum that the Cellular Operators Association of India brought before the High Court and the Telecom Disputes Settlement along with Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).