Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
The Superintendent, Office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai
Versus
The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.20574 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 05-01-2010
RTI Act - Public Prosecutor - Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Right To Information Act, Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 22 of the RTI Act. The key legal provisions highlighted were the privilege communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act and the obligations of a public authority under the RTI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The Superintendent of the office of the Public Prosecutor filed a writ petition challenging the summons issued by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission. The petitioner refused to disclose certain information based on privilege communication under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought was privileged and could not be disclosed without the express consent of the client, i.e., the State of Tamil Nadu. The court set aside the impugned summons issued by the first respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Public Prosecutor was entitled to challenge the notice issued by the Information Commission and whether the information sought was privileged under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the information sought was privileged and could not be disclosed without the express consent of the client, as per Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned summons issued by the first respondent was set aside. The parties were allowed to bear their own costs.
Heard both sides.
2. Thewrit petition is filed by the Superintendent of office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, seeking to challenge the summons issued by the first respondent, Tamil Nadu Information Commission. The summons came to be issued on a complaint made by the second respondent, dated 12. 2008. The second respondent initially applied to the Additional Public Prosecutor, who also was designated as the Information Officer of the office of the Public Prosecutor under the Right To Information Act (for short RTI Act), dated 7. 2008. In that letter, he sought for records relating to the FIR in Dharmapuri City Police Station in Crime No.2208/2001 as well as the judgment of this court in Criminal Appeal No.699 of 2005, dated 22. 2008. The petitioner wanted to have Photostat copies of all the documents relating to these two references from his office, including the office noting found in the file. He also wanted to have the copy of the opinion tendered by the Public Prosecutor regarding filing of an appeal against the order of this court.
3. Hefurther wanted to know as to who was responsible for taking action against persons on the basis of observation made in paragraph 18 of the said judgment. In case, their office had written any letters, he wanted to have Photostat copies of those letters along with annexures. In case, if they do not have any such records in their office, they were asked to act in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
4. On receipt of the said requisition, the petitioners office informed that they are not in a position to inform the second respondent as he was not entitled to get such information. In respect of the opinion tendered in respect of any case, they are not available under the provisions of the Act. Since the second respondent approached the first respondent Commission, the Commission informed the Information Officer of the petitioners office to furnish such information as sought for by the second respondent. When the second respondent failed to get any information, he filed a second appeal to the first respondent under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
5. In the meanwhile, the petitioners office informed that whatever information sought for by the second respondent have been sent to the Home (Police) Department. The said department by G.O.Ms.No.1042, Public, dated 110. 2005 was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. Further, they had already informed that the opinion tendered by their office cannot be divulged to the second respondent. It was further impressed that the relationship between the office of the Public Prosecutor and the Government is one of lawyer-client relationship. Under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is a privileged information and there is a bar from divulging such information.
6. Notwithstanding the stand taken by the petitioners office, the Commission issued the impugned summons asking the petitioners office to appear before the Commission along with the original records on 24.09.2009 for further consideration. The said date was postponed to 110. 2009 at the instance of the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and it was admitted on 010. 2009 and an interim stay was also granted. After notice, the matter came to be posted.
7. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the information sought for by the first respondent Commission is a privilege communication and is fully protected by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, there is no necessity to furnish any information as sought for by the second respondent and as directed by the Commission. Reference was also made to Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows:
"126. Professional communications. “No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
