The Delhi High Court has nullified a 2011 Central Information Commission order. This order mandated the release of the opinion provided to the Center by the former Solicitor General of India in 2007 regarding cases filed by the Cellular Operators Association of India concerning the allocation of 2G spectrum.

The court ruled that this specific information falls under the exemptions outlined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act, allowing non-disclosure unless there are compelling reasons that strongly demonstrate its release would serve the public interest.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the Centre's objection to the Central Information Commission (CIC) order, highlighted that the connection between the Solicitor General and the Government of India is akin to a fiduciary relationship, falling within the exemption outlined in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act.

The disclosure of the opinion is permissible solely when the public interest in revealing it surpasses the potential harm to protected interests, as per Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. As the RTI applicant failed to establish the existence of such public interest in this instance, the High Court concluded that the CIC's order could not be upheld.

"Just by simply stating that it is in public interest to disclose the information would not be sufficient unless weighty reasons are given as to how the information which is exempted from being provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act should be provided and as to how the public interest would outweigh the harm to the protected interest," said the court in a recent order.

"This court finds no infirmity with the argument put forth by the Counsel for the Petitioner (Centre) that the advice tendered by the Solicitor General to the Union of India and other various government departments is done in the nature of a fiduciary, and hence the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act has been invoked," it concluded.

The court noted that according to the guidelines governing the involvement of Law Officers, it is their responsibility to provide legal counsel exclusively to the Government of India on legal affairs. A law officer is prohibited from representing any party unless granted permission by the Government of India.

The court emphasized that the Solicitor General of India is obligated to serve the interests of the Union government, which in turn places trust and reliance upon their expertise. Additionally, the court highlighted that the RTI Act aims to empower citizens by enabling them to request information from any public authority. This, in essence, upholds the essence of genuine democracy by ensuring public authorities remain accountable and responsive to the public.

The court further emphasized that while the RTI Act allows citizens to seek information, there are specific exemptions outlined in Section 8. This section suspends the requirement to disclose certain information under various categories. Such exempted information can only be provided if it serves the broader interest of the public.

The court highlighted that revealing information exempted under Section 8 for public interest must consider a critical balance. The disclosure should weigh the benefits of public interest against the potential harm to protected interests of a public authority or its officials. Consequently, the court stressed the importance of a careful and judicious approach to information disclosure, ensuring a delicate balance between a citizen's right to information and the responsibilities of state functionaries.

"Writ Petition succeeds and the Order dated 05.12.2011 is set aside," it ruled.

RTI applicant Subhash Chandra Agrawal submitted an application under the RTI Act in 2010, requesting specific information and details pertaining to the allocation of 2G Band/Spectrums.

In December 2011, the Central Information Commission (CIC) instructed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, to furnish a copy of the 2007 note or opinion given by the then Solicitor General of India to the Department of Telecommunications. This directive was related to multiple cases filed by the Cellular Operators Association of India before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) and the high court concerning the allocation of 2G spectrums.