RTI: govt tight-lipped on ministers

The state government has declined to provide the opinion given to it by the Advocate General or other legal luminaries on the issue of ministers under RTI. The opinion was sought after the information commission's order — and before the state government's decision — that ministers are public authorities and thus they come under the RTI Act. While declining to furnish information, it has cited a high court order which states that the Advocate General's "frank and candid opinions" to the government should not be shared unless there is "overwhelming public interest".

The Advocate General's opinion is sought on various issues, which include the state government looking to put forward its stance before the court, looking to challenge a court's order before a higher court, before taking action on sensitive issues, interpretation of Acts or laws before acting on them, checking if a law is misinterpreted or misused by state officials, understanding and framing policies that could meet legal hurdles, or may be at the crossroads with the statute, among others.

The Bombay High Court order was given in relation to a case with Reliance Infrastructures and others v/s Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, urban development department of state government and others as parties. The information was sought by DNA, along with some other details related to ministers coming under RTI after the state information commission (SIC) that was not implemented or challenged by the state government. The state Chief Information Commissioner, Ratnakar Gaikwad, in his order dated September 24, 2015, had directed the chief secretary to appoint public information officers (PIOs) and first appellate authority (FAA) on offices of all ministers by October 31, 2015.

The order, however, was implemented only in October 2016. DNA had filed its RTI application in August 2016 with the chief minister's office. While the CMO said the file was with the general administration department, the public information officer of the general administration could not provide information as the application did not reach them. In a first appeal order dated January 11, 2017, the the first appellate authority stated that all other information can be given except the opinion of the Advocate General's as per the HC order.

-"The HC order does not seem to have come out of an RTI case itself. Had the HC order cited by the state been decided on an RTI application that went up to the High Court because the Advocate General's opinion was either denied or provided under RTI, it would have been another matter. The rejection of information by the authority does not seem to be under sections of RTI which should be the case. The exercise of not providing information seems to be irrelevant. Sections of RTI Act should have been cited to deny the information. Even the sections which state that information can be denied go on to state that such information cannot be denied if larger public interest is proved," said Shailesh Gandhi, former central information commissioner.

"Basically they have taken a stand that on everything, you need to prove the public interest. That may depend on case to case basis. But all ministers are made only for public interest. This will not be applicable over here. The HC case seems to be a case of a private company with commercial interests," opined Bhaskar Prabhu, of Mahiti Adhikar Manch, which provides RTI training and awareness. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis did not comment.