The main legal point established in the judgment is that the office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, considering the constitutional and statutory powers vested in the AGI.

Vibhu Bakhru, J.:--

1. The point in issue in these petitions, is whether the Office of Attorney General of India is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the ‘RTI Act’)?

2. The petitioners impugn an order dated 10.12.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘the CIC’) holding that the office of Attorney General of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AGI') is not a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1665/2013 has also challenged a letter dated 29.01.2013 issued by the office of AGI refusing the information sought for by the petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts leading to the present petitions are as follows:-

3.1 Shri R.K. Jain, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1665/2013 filed an application dated 07.01.2013 with the office of AGI, seeking information under the RTI Act. In response to the said application, the Office of AGI returned the petitioner’s application under the cover of its letter dated 29.01.2013, stating that as per the full Bench decision of the CIC, the AGI is not a “public authority”. Shri R.K. Jain has, therefore, challenged the impugned order dated 10.12.2012 and also prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent to provide the information as sought for by him.

3.2 Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1041/2013 filed an application dated 15.11.2011, addressed to the CPIO office of the AGI, seeking certain information under the RTI Act. It is asserted that the said office of the AGI declined to accept the said application; the speed post envelope containing the said application was returned with the remark “There is no CPIO in AG’s Office”. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, with the CIC, on 02.12.2012. The petitioner also requested that a direction be issued to the Office of the AGI to respond to the petitioner’s application dated 15.11.2011.

4. By the impugned order dated 10.12.2012, the CIC rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1041/2013 by holding that AGI was not a “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. The CIC was of the opinion that the AGI was only a person and could not be considered as an “authority” and, therefore, fell outside the sweep of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

5. The CIC referred to the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and Anr., (1981) 1 SCC 449 to conclude that AGI was not an authority:-

“27. Control by Government of the corporation is writ large in the Act and in the factum of being a Government company. Moreover, here, Section 7 gives to the Government company mentioned in it a statutory recognition, a legislative sanction and status above a mere Government company. If the entity is no more than a company under the Company law or society under the law relating to registered societies or cooperative societies you cannot call it an authority. A ration shop run by a cooperative store financed by government is not an authority, being a mere merchant, not a sharer of State power. ‘Authority’ in law belong to the province of power: ‘Authority (in Administrative Law) is a body having jurisdiction in certain matters of a public nature.’ Therefore, the ‘ability conferred upon a person by the law to alter, by his own will directed to that end, the rights, duties; liabilities or other legal relations, either of himself or of other persons’ must be present ab extra to make a person an ‘authority’. When the person is an 'agent or instrument of the functions of the State' the power is public. So the search here must be to see whether the Act vests authority, as agent or instrument of the State, to affect the legal relations of oneself or others.”

6. The petitioners assail the decision of the CIC and contend that the offi