PIO: The opinion of the Solicitor General has come into the press unofficially - The Advocate for the appellant submitted that as the information was already leaked to the press, it cannot be treated as privileged information - CIC: Provide it
2 Sep, 2016FACTS:
1. Vide this Commission’s order dated 3032015, the CPIO was given one week’s time to file an affidavit regarding the facts of the case.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
2. The CPIO C.S.Thakur appeared before the Commission today and made oral submissions and also presented the affidavit to the Commission along with a copy to the appellant. The CPIO submitted that the opinion of the Solicitor General was sought in respect of a case pending before the Supreme Court. This opinion has come into the press unofficially. The Advocate for the appellant says that as the information was already leaked to the press, it cannot be treated as privileged information. He also read section 126 of the Evidence Act and also section 16 of the Sexual Harassment Act. He argued that none of the provisions of these acts are breached by the sharing of the said document. The advocate also pointed out that the claim of the CPIO that the matter is sub judice is not tenable, as he is not seeking the status of the pendency of complaint. The CPIO contended that the SG opinion can only be shared after the finalisation of the Supreme Court case. In this connection, the CPIO has shown the relevant file to the Commission, wherein the SG opinion was available. The advocate for the appellant was asked to go through the same. After perusal of the same, the advocate contended that nowhere in the entire SG opinion, there is any reference to the allegations. Hence it is out of the purview of section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; of the RTI Act.
3. The Commission having perused the file of the respondent authority, concludes that the information sought by the appellant does not come under the purview of Section 8(1)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; of the RTI Act and directs the respondent authority to provide information on the SG opinion, the designation of the officer (without mentioning the name) who initiated the proposal and the designation of the officer (without mentioning the name) to whom the file reached for approval, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Amit Chadha v. M/o Environment & Forests in case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/001382