Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Department Of Legal Affairs on 6 May, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOLAF/A/2023/604354.
Smt. Gita Dewan Verma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Department of Legal Affairs.
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025
Date of Decision : 12.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.12.2022
PIO replied on : 28.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 28.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 23.01.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 25.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.12.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Attached for ready neference is the document listing functions of Advice Section published on D/o Legal Affairs website (Home RTI Proactive Disclosure The functions and duties of each section of this Department/Section/Division - Advice/Advice Section Functions). Functions of Advice B Section are listed on third and fourth pages (44 items). Please provide:
1. The Form in which the Index Register mentioned in item No. 44 is kept in Advice B Section. (Please also inform whether the Index Register is maintained physically or electronically).
2. Copies, from the ministries-wise indexing of opinions, of extracts (if any) pertaining to opinions tendered to the following:
a) Ministry of Agriculture in matters of the Charitable Endowments Act 1890 (at any time)
b) Ministry of Culture in matters of the Public Records Act 1993 (since 2005)
c) Ministry of Electronics and information Technology in matters of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (since 2018)"
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.12.2022 replied as under:-
"Reason for Rejection:- Others.
Remarks:- It is stated that the information sought by you pertains to the internal working and management of the Sections. With the passage of time and changing technology, the procedure of record management also changes Page 1 and this is for the internal use of office management and referencing. As held by the Apex Court, the transactions of the Government which have no repercussion on public security and no bearing on public interest are privileged and are only for official purposes."
The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.01.2023 stated as under :-
"3. The CPIO has furnished his reply on 28.12.2022 to the applicant. As the information sought by the applicant pertains to the internal working and management of the section, it is rightly to say by the CPIO that with the passage of time and changing technology, the procedure of record management also changes and this is for the internal use of office management and referencing. As held by the Apex Court, the transactions of the Government which have no repercussion on public security and no bearing on public interest are privileged and are only for official purposes.
4. I have examined the Appeal & the RTI request along with the submission of CPIO which fulfil the spirit of the RTI Act. Hence, the appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Satish Kumar Singh, AAO The CPIO submitted that 1t is submitted that primarily the function of Advice Sections of the Department of Legal Affairs is to provide advice or legal opinions to various ministries/departments of the Government of India on the subjects provided by the referring ministries/departments. The Advice Section is further divided as: A. Advice A Section B. Advice B Section C. Advice C Section. The details of Ministries dealt by Advise A&B Section has been provided on the website of Department of Legal Affairs, and Advice C Section deals with the opinions rendered by Law Officers of the Government of India. I is further stated that as per the practice of this Department, opinions are recorded in the original files referred to it by the concerned Ministry/Department and thereafter, the complete file is returned to the referring Ministry/Department. Thus the referring Ministry/Department is the custodian of the file and therefore the holder of the information. Therefore, the Department of Legal Affairs hold the files received from various ministries/departments in fiduciary capacity. Section 8(1 )(e) provides an exemption from furnishing of information, if the information available to a person is in his fiduciary relationship unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information the concerned public authority holds the information in fiduciary relationship, then the obligation to furnish information is obliterated. Firstly, Section 8(1)(e) protects information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. The term fiduciary relationship has not been defined in the RTI Act. The Delhi High Court in Union of India vs Central Information Commissioner (2009 SCC Online Del 3876) has interpreted the term fiduciary relationship. In this case, The Delhi High Court observed that "the California Court of Appeals defined fiduciary relationship as any relationship existing between the parties to the transaction where one of the parties is duty bound Page 2 to act with utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. Such a relationship ordinarily arises where confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interests of the other party without the latter's knowledge and consent. 8. Fiduciary can be described as an arrangement expressly agreed to or at least consciously undertaken in which one party trusts, relies and depends upon another's judgment or counsel. Fiduciary relationships may be formal, informal, voluntary or involuntary. It is legal acceptance that there are ethical or moral relationships or duties in relationships which create rights and obligations. The fiduciary obligations may be created by a contract but they differ from contractual relationships for they can exist even without payment of consideration by the beneficiaries and unlike contractual duties and obligations, fiduciary obligations may not be readily tailored and modified to suit the parties. In a fiduciary relationship, the principal emphasis is on trust, and reliance, the fiduciary's superior power and corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the fiduciary. It requires a dominant position, integrity and responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not oneself."
In another judgment Union Of India And Anr vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal MANU/DE/8789/2023, the CIC allowed the appeal of the Respondent herein and has directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice to provide the copy of the note/opinion of 2007 given by the then Solicitor General of India to the Department of Telecommunications. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this case allowed the petition and held that the information sought for by the Respondent, which is exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Court has observed that, "On the perusal of the Rules for engagement of Law Officers, it is seen that it is the duty of the Law Officers to give advice to the Government of India on legal matters. A Law Officer is not allowed to hold brief for any party except with the permission of the Government of India. The Law Officer is also restricted from advising any party against the Government of India or a Public Sector Undertaking. 27. What can be seen from the Rules as well as the judgements of the Supreme Court is that the relationship between the Solicitor General of India and the Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary. The Solicitor General of India is duty bound to work for the benefit of the Union and other departments in good faith, where there exists trust and reliance by the beneficiary upon the Ld. Solicitor General. This Court finds no infirmity with the argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the advice tendered by the Ld. Solicitor General to the Union of India and other various government departments is done in the nature of a fiduciary, and hence the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act has been invoked."
2. Section 8(1)(e), therefore, carves out a protection in favour of a person who possesses information in his fiduciary relationship. This protection can be negated by the competent authority where larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, in which case, the authority is expected to record reasons for its satisfaction. It is further stated that the information sought by the applicant does not meet any larger public interest as provided under the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, information sought by applicant is a part of privileged communication under the functioning of the Department. In Page 3 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain - (1975) 4 SCC 428, the Hon'ble apex Court observed that, "In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can but few secrets, the people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know, which is derived from the concept of its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security."
Also, In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 2 SCC 476, this court held that right of information is a facet of the freedom of "speech and expression" as contained in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India and such a right is subject to any reasonable restriction in the interest of the security of the state and subject to exemption and exemptions. In view of the above examination and observations made by Hon'ble Court, It may be stated that the information sought by the applicant does not meet any larger public interest.
3. This is also pertinent to mention that the information sought by the applicant pertains to the internal working and management of the section. It can be stated that with the passage of the time and changing technology, the procedure of record management also changes. No set formula of record management can be followed in Advice & Section.
It is submitted that the grounds raised by the appellant are denied in essence and are liable to be rejected. The reason behind denial of information is neither vague nor without reason. The assertion that the CPIO is mandated to provide the Information under RTI Act is denied in light of the foregoing preliminary submissions, which need not be not stated here to avoid repetition.
In view, of the forgoing, the allegations made by the applicant against the CPIO, Advice section before the CIC in his 2nd appeal are baseless and devoid of any merit, as the CPIO has acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed under RTI Act, 2005 and in the interest of justice.
Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO. No Further action lies. The Appeal stands disposed off.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)