A public prosecutor representing the state in criminal cases need not divulge details of the legal opinion given to the government as it is privileged communication, the Madras High Court has ruled. In a similar case Supreme Court said that a judge could not be asked under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as to how and why he came to a particular conclusion in a judgment
Upholding special government pleader M Dhandapani’s submission that the relationship between the state and the public prosecutor (PP) was one of client-lawyer relationship, Justice K Chandru said: “The public prosecutor’s office is perfectly right in contending that the information sought for by a RTI applicant is a privileged communication and they cannot disclose it without the express consent of their client — the state of Tamil Nadu.”
Pointing out that the RTI applicant had sought the legal opinion given by the prosecutor, all letters and correspondence between the prosecutor’s office and the government, the FIR and the file notings, the judge said: “Such information is completely privileged and disclosure of the same is barred by Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
The present petition was filed by the office superintendent of the public prosecutor in the Madras High Court against summons issued by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission. The matter relates to an RTI application filed by M Sivaraj, who wanted the particulars of a case in Dharmapuri district along with the legal opinion given by the prosecutor. As the application was turned down by the PP’s office, he approached the information panel, which said the information should be given to the applicant.