The main legal point established in the judgment is that the office of the Attorney General of India does not qualify as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act due to its primarily legal advisory and representative functions, as well as the fiduciary relationship with the Government of India.

G. ROHINI, J.

1. By Common order dated 10.03.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 1041/2013 and W.P. (C) No. 1665/2013, the learned Single Judge held that the office of Attorney General of India (AGI) is a ''public authority'' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act').

2. Aggrieved by the same, these two appeals have been preferred by the Union of India.

3. We have heard Sh. Sanjay Jain, the learned ASG appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Sh. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in LPA No. 168/2015 and Mr. J.K. Mittal, the learned counsel appearing in LPA No. 199/2015.

4. Facts are not in dispute. The application made by the respondent in LPA No. 168/2015 to provide certain information relating to the office of AGI was returned by the office of the AGI on the ground that AGI is not a public authority and there is no CPIO in the office of AGI. On a complaint by the respondent under Section 18 of RTI Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had also held that AGI is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The application dated 07.01.2013 made by the respondent in LPA No. 199/2015 seeking information regarding the representation/petition received from Indirect Tax Practitioners Association, Bangalore was also rejected on the same ground.

5. The said orders on being assailed before this Court were set aside by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal holding that the office of AGI is a "public authority." Accordingly, the matters were remanded to the CIC for reconsideration of the applications of the writ petitioners/ respondents herein.

6. As is evident from order under appeal, the contention of the writ petitioners was that AGI being an authority under the Constitution, falls within the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the Union of India/the respondent in the writ petitions that AGI having been appointed under Article 76 of the Constitution of India to give advice to the Government of India upon the legal matters, the relationship between AGI and the Government of India is that of a lawyer and client and therefore, the office of AGI does not fall within the definition of "public authority" under the RTI Act.

7. While rejecting the contention on behalf of the Union of India, the learned Single Judge had accepted the plea of the writ petitioners that the office of AGI is covered by the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The relevant paragraphs from the order under appeal may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“19. It is apparent from the above that the role of the AGI is not limited to merely acting as a lawyer for the Government of India as is contended by the respondent; the AGI is a constitutional functionary and is also obliged to discharge the functions under the Constitution as well as under any other law.

20. Although, it cannot be disputed that AGI is a constitutional functionary, the point in issue is whether he can be termed as an authority. The respondent has relied heavily on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh (supra) and Som Prakash Rekhi (supra) to contend that the AGI cannot be considered as an authority since the office of Attorney General of India does not have the power to alter, by his own will directed to that end, the rights, duties; liabilities or other legal relations, either of himself or of other.

21. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention, for the reason that the term authority as used in the opening sentence of Section 2(h) of the Act cannot be interpreted in a restrictive sense. The expression authority would also include all persons or bodies that have been conferred a power to perform the functions entrusted to them. Merely because the bulk of the duties of the AGI are advisory, the same would not render the office of the AGI any