You can access A-G's opinion through RTI

You may now be able to access the Advocate General's (A-G) opinion given to the government on matters of public interest such as reservation, dance bar, metro fare hike, and dahi handi under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

The Maharashtra State Information commission (SIC) has set aside a blanket ban of the state government to not provide information about the A-G's opinion to applicants. The State had cited a Bombay High Court (HC) order to deny such information under RTI. Though not binding on other SICs or Central Information Commission (CIC), orders of any SIC are often used as case studies to argue for a judgment in one's favour.

In an order dated July 11, 2017, Ajit Kumar Jain, state information commissioner (Brihanmumbai Bench) asked the government to provide one such opinion that was given to the government. The opinion was on a minister's office coming under RTI. State government had sought the A-G's opinion on it after the former chief commissioner, Ratnakar Gaikwad, had passed an order last year that a minister's office comes under RTI.

Opinions of lawyers or A-Gs are also denied by public authorities, citing section 8 (1) (e) of the act that pertains to fiduciary relationship. "I remember a decision I had given when a university refused to give a lawyer's opinion saying it was in fiduciary capacity," said Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner. "I had asked for the information to be released. A lawyer is obligated to not give out information about his customer, but that cannot be the case with the customer."

DNA had sought information on the A-G's opinion, along with other details, before the SIC order of appointing a Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) was implemented by the government. The request was refused by the government.

Recently, the issue of A-GI was in news for being under the ambit of RTI. "The CIC decided in our favor that the A-GI office is a public authority as it is constituted under RTI. Even single bench of Delhi HC ruled in our favour but division bench over turned it. We have now approached SC," said Delhi based Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the applicant in A-GI case.

The 2015 Bombay HC order that the General Administration Department (GAD) cited, stated that: "We are of the considered view that unless it is required to be disclosed considering the overwhelming public interest, the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General must be kept confidential." It went on to state that "Apart from circulating a copy of the order to all the departments, a copy thereof be forwarded to the chief secretary of the state government to enable him to issue the appropriate directions."

GAD, to which the chief minister's office passed the RTI application, stated that HC has barred AG's opinion to be given. GAD did not mention any section of the RTI Act while denying such information. During the hearing, it also cited an opinion of law and judiciary department which was sought to deny AG's opinion in another matter.

The commission observed: "As per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, opinions that are part of record, is part of definition of information (under RTI). The court order that the PIO has cited states that besides matters of overwhelming public interest, opinion of the A-G should be kept secret." It further observed that appointing of PIO and FAA in ministers' office is a matter of public interest and providing such information also does not violate section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act which states "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders".