Legal opinions from the Advocate General are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act due to fiduciary relationship principles.

JUDGMENT

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 1^st petitioner is the Secretary to the Advocate General, Kerala, and the 2^nd 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 3^rd petitioner is the appellate authority under the Act 2005. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order of the 1^st respondent State Information Commission. The 2^nd respondent herein submitted Ext.P1 application dated 10.06.2009 to the 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent filed an appeal before the 3^rd petitioner, the Appellate Authority, as per the Act 2005. Ext.P3 is the appeal. The appeal was rejected by the 3^rd petitioner as per Ext.P4 order, confirming Ext.P2 order. Thereafter the 2^nd respondent filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, as evident by Ext.P5. The Commission, by Ext.P6 order, directed the 3^rd petitioner to file a report, and as directed by the Commission, the 3^rd petitioner filed the report on 25.09.2009, as evident by Ext.P7. Thereafter the Commission directed the 2^nd 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 2^nd petitioner appeared before the Commission and filed an affidavit, as evident by Ext.P9. Thereafter, the Commission did not accept the contention of the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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, 2^nd 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 2^nd 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