The Allahabad High Court has rejected an Advocate's plea seeking information on communications and correspondences between government advocate and various offices of the State regarding one matter wherein he appeared for the petitioning party.
The single-judge bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav observed is that this is not a fit case where an ordinary litigant litigating in Court is seeking information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
"The request made by the petitioner therefore has to be viewed in that context. Reading the application under the RTI Act would indicate that as an advocate appearing for the party respondent in proceedings before this Court, the petitioner has asked for details of the correspondence that the advocate for the government entered into between the various offices before filing an appeal and/or application for condonation of delay," the Court opined.
Without getting into the motive of the learned counsel-the petitioner himself, it can be safely inferred that it was open for the petitioner as an advocate to contest the application filed before this Court on merits and not use the provisions of the RTI Act for reasons to support his professional pursuit before this Court where he would appear as an advocate, the Court added.
The Court was rather of the view that the judicial proceedings before this Court in the Civil Application for condonation of delay were at large and could have been contested by the petitioner in his professional capacity as a lawyer and the attempt to seek details under the Right to Information Act of the correspondence between the Government Pleader’s office and the State was essentially an attempt to subvert the judicial proceedings which could have been contested on merits by the counsel, the petitioner himself.
Even otherwise, considering the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act and the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act, communications between the office of the Government Pleader and the State in respect to judicial proceedings were professional communications as defined under Section 126 of the Evidence Act and therefore would squarely fall within the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, the Court clarified
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments