Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Jan 22: State Information Commission has held that legal opinion to the university by the Standing Counsel cannot be termed as privileged and confidential communication by invoking the provisions of the Evidence Act and cannot be denied under J&K Right to Information Act.
The decision was taken in two 2nd appeals arisen out of the orders of the First Appellate Authority (Registrar University of Jammu) and the disposal of RTI applications filed by the appellant Dr Sapna Sharma by the PIO of the University of Jammu.
The appellant had requested for providing the copies of legal opinion obtained by the university in the regularization matter of Dr Bharti Prabhakar, Dr Pallavi Sachdeva and Dr Sandeep Singh besides the copy of communication of Department of Sociology applying for UGC-SAP and copy of minutes of DAC, Department of Sociology downgrading the post of Reader in 2005-06.
While rest of the information was provided to the appellant yet copies of the legal opinions tendered by the Standing Counsel of the university was not given on the ground of being third party information.
The issues before the State Information Commission in the 2nd appeals was whether legal opinion can be termed as information within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the J&K RTI Act, 2009; whether the legal opinion obtained by the university from its Standing Counsel can be categorized as privileged and confidential information and hence immune from disclosure and whether such information can be termed as information given in a fiduciary capacity and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the J&K RTI Act, 2009.
Keeping in view judicial pronouncements and the orders of the Central Information Commission, the Information Commissioner Mohammad Ashraf Mir observed, “the legal advice tendered by the Standing Counsel to the university cannot be termed as privileged and confidential communication by invoking the provisions of the Evidence Act and the same cannot be denied under RTI Act in view of the overriding effect of the provisions of RTI Act over all other laws including the Evidence Act”.
“University cannot be said to be holding such information in fiduciary capacity so as to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of J&K RTI Act, 2009. Only the Standing Counsel of the university can claim fiduciary relationship with the university in case the applicant directly seeks information from him”, the Information Commissioner said, adding “even the information held by a person in fiduciary capacity is to be disclosed in the larger public interest”.
While setting aside the orders of the PIO and FAA, the Information Commissioner directed the PIO to provide copies of legal opinions obtained by the university in the regularization matters of Dr Bharti Prabhakar, Dr Pallavi Sachdeva and Dr Sandeep Singh within a period of three weeks.
Follow our WhatsApp channel