The Court was considering two writ petitions moved by the Secretary to the Advocate General challenging the orders of the State Information Commission which had ruled that a party is entitled to a copy of the legal advice given by the AG, in the Lavalin case and the custodial death case of Sampath of Palghat, to the Government of Kerala, under Section 5 of the RTI Act.
Senior Government Pleader TB Hood, representing the petitioners, contended that the relationship between the AG and the State government being a fiduciary relationship, any legal opinion given is protected from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
He also submitted that the relationship between the AG and the State government is essentially that of an advocate and client, and to strengthen his contention, he relied on the judgment in Joginder Singh Wasu v State of Punjab.
Advocate M Ajay, appearing for the State Information Commission, supported the orders passed by the Commission. He submitted that when the government forwards a file to the AG and the AG generates an opinion on it, it becomes part of the file. Therefore, he contended that the same will not come within the purview of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act.
Source: Barandbench
