SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Secretary To Advocate General, Office Of The Advocate-General, Kerala - Petitioners
Versus
State Information Commissioner, Kerala Represented By Secretary - Respondents W.P.(C).Nos.7979 of 2010 & 7240 of 2013
Decided On : 30-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri. T.B. Hood.
For the Respondent: Sri. M. Ajay, Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, Sri. C.V. Antony Kothamangalam.

Point of law: One of the most basic principles of the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 165 (1)(2) ,163 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 126, 22 – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 8(1)(e),5,2(f) ,3 – Writ petition is filed challenging order - Lawyer-client relationship - Whether relationship between Advocate General of State and Government is a fiduciary relationship – Whether legal opinions given by Advocate General to Government are exempted as per Section 8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005 - lawyer who is acting on behalf of the accused in a criminal case is based on a fiduciary relationship. The trust and faith constitute such relationship. (Para 17).

Finding of the court: It is clear that lawyer-client relationship is a fiduciary relationship – There may be delicate and confidential communications between a lawyer and his client – All communications between lawyer and his client are to be protected because these communications are confidential – Same is protected as per Section 8(1)(e) of Act 2005 – As court mentioned earlier, there may be delicate and sensitive issues, in which Government wants opinion of Advocate General – Therefore, these writ petitions are to be allowed quashing orders passed by State Information Commission.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Common legal questions are raised in these two writ petitions; therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. Whether the relationship between the Advocate General of the State and the Government is a fiduciary relationship? Whether the legal opinions given by the Advocate General to the Government are exempted as per Section 8(1)(e) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, Act 2005)? These are some of the questions to be decided in these cases.

3. First, I will consider the facts in W.P.(C). No.7979/2010. The 1st petitioner is the Secretary to the Advocate General, Kerala, and the 2nd petitioner is the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) in the Office of the Advocate General, Kerala, designated under Section 5 of the Act 2005. The 3rd petitioner is the appellate authority under the Act 2005. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order of the 1st respondent State Information Commission. The 2nd respondent herein submitted Ext.P1 application dated 10.06.2009 to the 2nd petitioner under the Act 2005 requesting to furnish a certified copy of the "report" given by the Advocate General to the Government of Kerala in the Lavalin case. A communication, as evident by Ext.P2, was issued by the SPIO informing that such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act 2005. The 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd petitioner, the Appellate Authority, as per the Act 2005. Ext.P3 is the appeal. The appeal was rejected by the 3rd petitioner as per Ext.P4 order, confirming Ext.P2 order. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, as evident by Ext.P5. The Commission, by Ext.P6 order, directed the 3rd petitioner to file a report, and as directed by the Commission, the 3rd petitioner filed the report on 25.09.2009, as evident by Ext.P7. Thereafter the Commission directed the 2nd petitioner to appear in person before the Commission with all documents as per the letter dated 16.01.2010, and the same is marked as Ext.P8. The 2nd petitioner appeared before the Commission and filed an affidavit, as evident by Ext.P9. Thereafter, the Commission did not accept the contention of the 2nd petitioner that there exists a fiduciary relationship between the Advocate General and the Government. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed as per Ext.P10 order, and it was declared that the 2nd respondent is entitled to a copy of the legal advice given by the Advocate General in the Lavalin case to the Government of Kerala. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 this writ petition is filed.

4. W.P.(C). No.7240/2013 is also filed by the same petitioners as in W.P.(C). No.7979/2010. In this case, 2nd respondent submitted an application under the Act 2005 to furnish certain documents. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the application. It will be better to extract the information/documents requested by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P1 application:

    “1. KERALA GOVERNMENT approached the Division Bench of Kerala High Court against the Judgment of Hon. Justice V. Ramkumar in W.P.(C). No.13426 of 2010. (Murukesan vs. State of Kerala or the custodial death of Sampath of Palaghat). Please provide me a certified copy of the legal advice given by the Advocate General's Office to proceed with an appeal.

2. This appeal was rejected by the Bench of Chief Justice Mr.Chelameswar and Justice P.N.Raveendran and the Government of Kerala approached Supreme Court with appeal. Please give me the legal advise (certified copy) given by the office of the Advocate General to proceed with an appeal in the Supreme Court.

3. Senior Counsel Advocate Rao appeared for the Government of Kerala. Give me the certified copy of the order which entrust the appointment of Mr.Rao.

4. Please provide me details of Expenses incurred to the Government of Kerala in both the appeals including the professional fee of the counsel in the Supreme Court.

If any of the above mentioned information or document

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                whatsapp-icon Back to top