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.
Editorial NOTE: This article is categorized under
Opinion Section. The views expressed in this article are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of
merinews.com. In case you have a opposing view, please click
here to share the same in the comments section.