Re: [HumJanenge] DISCLOSING LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY CIC

You may kindly mention in your appeal that you believe that Ms Dixit sought the advice/opinion because of cases being unnecessarily delayed in CIC until the CPIO retired
and that evidently she apprehends that vigilance cases may be filed against her or her Registry..Hence there is larger public interest since teh first apepal is time bound unlike the 2nd appeal.

You may also mention that since the qualifications for Ms Dixit to be appointed as CIC include that she be eminent in law what was the reason for her to seek legal opinion, and in any case where is there any provision in the RTI Act for an IC to seek Legal opinion. If legal opinion has to be sought then surely it must be taken on behalf of the entire Commission and not by any individual IC to cover up his / her incompetence. So you must ask for the concerned direction/s (general or special) of the CCIC on seeking legal opinion by an IC

You may also take up the issue if PAs deliberately appointing soon to be retiring persons as PIOs to game the system on penalties.

Lastly you may mention that for at least 2 or 3 years after retirement the officers are generally liable to be prosecuted for their actions (incl. omissions)

Happy hunting

Sarbajit

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:21 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

DISCLOSING LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY CIC     Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has taken legal advice on the possible action which can be taken against the CPIOs (retd) under the RTI Act under section 19 or 20.  The advice was presumably taken from the Jt. Secretary (Legal) of the Central Information Commission.     I requested for the copy of the advice given to the IC, by filling RTI application but my request has been rejected stating-   a)       The advice has been given in a fiduciary capacity and the information is denied u.s. 18(1) (e) and Section 8(1((h).   b)                 That there is no large public interest in disclosure of information.   Section 18(1) (e) states that it is the duty of the Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the RTI Act. Thus, this nowhere bars the PIO to disclose the aforesaid information.   The section 8(1) (j) bars personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.  This section also states that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament shall not be denied to any person.              The retirement of PIOs and government officers is an on-going process therefore such officers should know in advance, before retirement, about the action that can or cannot be taken against them for the act of Commission and Omission by him while discharging their official duties. The Appellant should also know about the feasible action so that they can follow the case in the right direction for his case to the logical conclusion without leaving the case half way or do not drag that unnecessary.  This is also imperative so that the Right to information does not remain only on paper but in practice too.   In the case wherein the legal opinion was sought, the CPIO has deliberately given misleading information and wrong affidavit too thrice.  Therefore, the solicit information has direct relationship with public activity or interest and does not cause any unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the individual (PIO).  There is no relation between furnishing wrong information and invasion to the privacy.  If any member of any House (Parliament) wants information from the government about the legal provisions of action after retirement on the act of Commission and Omission by the Government employee, in my view, that can not be denied.             Section 4 (d) of the RTI Act directs the Public Authorities to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons, The CIC decision was also based on the legal advice received by it and therefore Information Commissioner should disclose the advice received by him/her.              Also, non-disclosure of such information will keep the Public Authorities and the public (appellants) in the dark about their duties, responsibilities and right, hence such information deserves to be disclosed even u.s. 4 (2) which direct every public authority to provide as much information suo motu so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act.             I solicit the views of legal and RTI experts on this.