It refers to full-bench CIC-verdict dismissing petitions asking for covering Attorney General under purview of RTI Act despite the fact that the latter is appointed by a government-notification and his post is covered under article 76 of the Constitution.
EVEN ADVOCATE Generals in states are public-authorities under RTI Act already complying with provisions of section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, and law-officers including Attorney General are governed by rules of Union Ministry of Law and Justice.
It is a classic example to establish that ordinary petitioners appearing before Information Commissions match nowhere against public-authorities armed with lawyers at public-expense. In this particular case, only some experienced/ senior lawyer for the appellants could practically convince bench-members of the Commission through counter case-citations against case-citations put by a team of lawyers headed by Additional Solicitor General of India.
Officers handling RTI petitions at public-authorities should be capable enough to represent public-authorities before Information Commissions. There has been an instance when Public Information Officer of Central Bank of India was penalised by Chief Information Commissioner for paying his lawyer-friend from public-authority to appear before the Commission even without having elementary knowledge of the case. For equality before Information Commissions, appearance of lawyers for public-authorities should not be allowed.