Single Bench of Kerala High Court headed by Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held on Friday that the legal opinions given by the Advocate General (AG) to the State Government are confidential and therefore, exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Court held that any communication between the Advocate General and the State Government is a confidential document and the relationship between them is a fiduciary relationship and such communications enjoy the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and held that "As I mentioned earlier, there may be delicate and sensitive issues, in which the Government wants the opinion of the Advocate General. Those are confidential communications between the Government and the Advocate General. The legal opinions given by the Advocate General to the Government should always be confidential. That is protected under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act 2005,".

It was a writ petition filed by the Secretary to the AG, Kerala challenging the order of the State Information Commission which had held that a party is entitled to a copy of the legal opinion given by the Advocate General in a Death Case.

The Court held that "There may be delicate and confidential communications between a lawyer and his client. All communications between the lawyer and his client are to be protected because these communications are confidential. The same is protected as per Section 8(1)(e) of the Act 2005. The Advocate General is the advisor of the Government."

The Court further held "The Advocate General is the advisor of the Government. As I mentioned earlier, there may be delicate and sensitive issues, in which the Government wants the opinion of the Advocate General. Those are confidential communications between the Government and the Advocate General. The legal opinions given by the Advocate General to the Government should always be confidential. That is protected under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act 2005. If it is protected under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act 2005, the overriding effect of Section 22 of the Act to the Evidence Act will also not be available. In such circumstances, Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act is also applicable as far as a legal opinion given by the Advocate General to the Government is concerned. Therefore, I am not in a position to agree with the orders passed by the State Information Commission in these two writ petitions to disclose the legal opinions given by the Advocate General to the Government. Therefore, these writ petitions are to be allowed quashing the orders passed by the State Information Commission."

Case Details:-

Secretary to the Adocate General & Ors.   ...Petitioner

Vs.

State Information Commissioner & Anr.   ...Respondents

Read the Complete Judgment:-

https://hckinfo.kerala.gov.in/digicourt/Casedetailssearch/fileviewtoken=MjE1NzAwMDcyNDAyMDEzXzEucGRm&lookups=b3JkZXJzLzIwMTM=