Fee paid to a particular advocate in challenging a CIC order - PIO: professional fees of advocate was fixed as per the seriousness of the case and is exempt u/s 8(1)(e) - privileged information between client and advocate is fiduciary - CIC: order upheld
22 Oct, 2013ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 02.04.2012 under the RTI Act, seeking information regarding the fee paid to a particular senior advocate in challenging a CIC order. CPIO responded on 07.05.2012 denying the information under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. Appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 06.06.2012. FAA vide order dated 09.07.2012 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, appellant filed this present second appeal on 26.09.2012.
Hearing
2. Respondent was present before the Commission.
3. Respondent referred to the RTI application of the appellant and stated that appellant was seeking information regarding the fee paid to a senior advocate in challenging CIC order.
4. Respondent stated that the appellant was asking about the fees paid to a senior advocate in contesting the CIC order. Respondent stated professional fees of the senior advocate was fixed according to the seriousness of the case and that the information was exempted under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.
5. Respondent stated that the professional fee of the advocate is information privileged between the client and the advocate, i.e., whether it was on per hearing basis or lump sum has nothing to do with the appellant.
6. Respondent stated that disclosing the information would damage the interests of the advocate and it will have an adverse impact on the relationship with the advocate. Respondent stated that the appellant was not asking the fee schedule of the advocate which they normally paid to the advocates.
7. Respondent, by way of background stated that in a RTI application appellant had sought information about an accident where the pillars holding a structure of DMRC collapsed. Respondent on the ground of copyright denied the information sought by the appellant. Appellant filed second appeal before the Commission and Commission had directed the respondent to provide the information sought by the appellant. Respondent contested the order of the Commission up to the level of Supreme Court. Respondent stated that the appellant was asking the professional fees paid to the senior advocate in contesting the said case.
8. Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
9. It emerged from the hearing that the professional fees paid to the advocate is information kept in a fiduciary relationship.
Decision
10. Order of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Aseem Takyar v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001426/04589