The Goa bench of Bombay High Court stretched the RTI Act's ambit to the maximum when it ruled that a governor's report to the Centre about the political situation in a state could not be kept under wraps and ordered its disclosure upon an application under the transparency law.
This has sent shock waves in the power corridors as the Union Cabinet headed by the prime minister relies on the secret report sent by the governor to the President as a precursor to action under Article 356 of the Constitution for imposition of central rule in a state.
Aware of the serious political fallout of such disclosure, the Centre has asked its law officers to draft an appeal urgently to challenge the HC verdict in the Supreme Court. The appeal against the November 14 HC verdict is expected to be filed by early next week, official sources told TOI.
BJP leader Manohar Parrikar had sought a copy of the Goa governor's report to the Union home minister regarding the political situation in the state during the period between July 24 to August 14, 2007. But the governor's principal information officer declined to provide the same under RTI Act. However, the Goa State Information Commission directed Raj Bhawan to provide the report to Parrikar. The PIO appealed against it before the Goa bench.
A division bench of Justices D G Karnik and D M Reis said, "It must be held that the governor cannot claim an exemption under clause (e) of sub-clause (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act in respect of disclosure of a report made by him under Article 356 of the Constitution."
Appearing for the governor's PIO, additional solicitor general Vivek Tankha said the information relating to day-to-day governance was available with ministries and departments and the rare constitutional functions discharged by the governor as the head of the state could not be said to have been discharged as a public authority as the RTI Act regarded him only as "competent authority".
But the bench saw no difference between the "competent authority" and "public authority". Relying on a Delhi High Court order which termed the chief justice of India as a public authority, it said, "The reason for which the CJI was a 'public authority' notwithstanding him being the 'competent authority' apply with equal force for not excluding the President and the governor from the definition of public authority."
It also refused to buy the argument that the President and the governors were the heads of the country and the state respectively and was not amenable to directions from any other authority like state information commission.
"Though the advice given by the council of ministers to the President or the governor, as the case may be, cannot be regarded as a command, under the constitutional scheme, the President and the governor in the bulk of matters are bound by the advice rendered by the council of ministers. In that sense, it cannot be said that the President and the governor are not in the habit of obedience to any other person or body of persons," said Justice Karnik who authored the judgment for the bench.
Dismissing the PIO's appeal, the bench said the President did not hold a fiduciary relationship with governors of states and hence, the information about the report made by the Goa governor to the President could not be held secret and kept out of the purview of RTI Act.
This has sent shock waves in the power corridors as the Union Cabinet headed by the prime minister relies on the secret report sent by the governor to the President as a precursor to action under Article 356 of the Constitution for imposition of central rule in a state.
Aware of the serious political fallout of such disclosure, the Centre has asked its law officers to draft an appeal urgently to challenge the HC verdict in the Supreme Court. The appeal against the November 14 HC verdict is expected to be filed by early next week, official sources told TOI.
BJP leader Manohar Parrikar had sought a copy of the Goa governor's report to the Union home minister regarding the political situation in the state during the period between July 24 to August 14, 2007. But the governor's principal information officer declined to provide the same under RTI Act. However, the Goa State Information Commission directed Raj Bhawan to provide the report to Parrikar. The PIO appealed against it before the Goa bench.
A division bench of Justices D G Karnik and D M Reis said, "It must be held that the governor cannot claim an exemption under clause (e) of sub-clause (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act in respect of disclosure of a report made by him under Article 356 of the Constitution."
Appearing for the governor's PIO, additional solicitor general Vivek Tankha said the information relating to day-to-day governance was available with ministries and departments and the rare constitutional functions discharged by the governor as the head of the state could not be said to have been discharged as a public authority as the RTI Act regarded him only as "competent authority".
But the bench saw no difference between the "competent authority" and "public authority". Relying on a Delhi High Court order which termed the chief justice of India as a public authority, it said, "The reason for which the CJI was a 'public authority' notwithstanding him being the 'competent authority' apply with equal force for not excluding the President and the governor from the definition of public authority."
It also refused to buy the argument that the President and the governors were the heads of the country and the state respectively and was not amenable to directions from any other authority like state information commission.
"Though the advice given by the council of ministers to the President or the governor, as the case may be, cannot be regarded as a command, under the constitutional scheme, the President and the governor in the bulk of matters are bound by the advice rendered by the council of ministers. In that sense, it cannot be said that the President and the governor are not in the habit of obedience to any other person or body of persons," said Justice Karnik who authored the judgment for the bench.
Dismissing the PIO's appeal, the bench said the President did not hold a fiduciary relationship with governors of states and hence, the information about the report made by the Goa governor to the President could not be held secret and kept out of the purview of RTI Act.
