CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA V. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL

COURT:   Supreme Court of India

 DATE OF DECISION:  13 November, 2019

CASE NO.:   Civil Appeal no. 10044/2010

FACTS:

• This case consists of three appeals arising from different orders denying the RTI Act’s necessary access to information. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (respondent) filed appeals in this matter with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO).
• The initial hearing of the appeals involves a respondent’s access to information application based on a newspaper report. The respondent requested the Chief Justice of India’s entire communication involving a Union Minister purportedly approaching Justice R Raghupati of the Madras High Court through a lawyer in order to influence a judicial decision.
• The next appeal concerned an RTI application asking for a copy of records held by the Supreme Court. This includes communications between the proper constitutional authorities regarding the appointment of several Supreme Court judges who would be superseded by other senior judges.
• The third appeal included an RTI application demanding details about declarations submitted by judges of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of the States regarding assets held by them, their wives, or anybody dependent on them.
• The first two appeals were filed against the CIC’s ruling granting access to information and were initially dismissed. The third appeal was filed against the full bench of the Delhi High Court’s judgment, which ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls within the definition of “public authority” under the RTI Act and allowed access to information on declarations made by judges to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices of the States regarding assets held by them, their spouses, or any person dependent on them.

ISSUE RAISED:

1. Whether the release of information to the public about the CJI’s office and the community of judges constitutes an interference with judicial independence?
2. Whether section 8(1)(j) exempt the information sought for the public disclosure?
3. Whether the public release of information sought regarding judges will limit or hinder the constitutional authorities from exercising their right to free and open expression?

CONTENTION

The appellants made the following arguments:

1. Judges’ independence would be jeopardized if they were made public. Judges should not be subjected to “litigated public debate,” and such protection is critical for the institution’s functioning.
2. The right to information is not an absolute right, and the RTI Act imposes constraints and put conditions on it.
3. Personal information that has no influence on any public activity or interest is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. According to the appellants, asset information falls under the purview of Section 8(1)(j) and is thus excluded.
4.  Furthermore, revealing information on candidates for judicial appointments would be an unjustified infringement of their privacy and would not serve the wider public interest.
5. The judges voluntarily submit their assets to the Chief Justice of India in his fiduciary capacity as the judiciary’s pater families. Furthermore, information relevant to judicial appointments is shared with other constitutional officers in their fiduciary capacity, making the material exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

The respondent made the following claims:

1. The response contended that disclosing the requested information does not jeopardize the judiciary’s independence. Transparency, on the other hand, would benefit the judiciary’s independence.
2. The data sought serves the greater public interest and overcomes the exemption afforded to personal information under RTI Act Section 8(1)(j).
3. There is no fiduciary tie between the Chief Justice and the justices or among the constitutional functionaries, as contemplated by Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which might be used to withhold information.
4. The respondent stated, citing the judgements in Central Board of Secondary Education and others v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others and Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, that the “duty of a public servant is not to act for the benefit of another public servant.” As a result, the Chief Justice and other functionaries must carry out their constitutional responsibilities while acting as fiduciaries only to the people. If the functionaries have a fiduciary responsibility, disclosure can be made if it serves the wider public interest.

RATIONALE:

The summary of judgment is as follows:

On November 13, 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled in favour of the respondent, upholding the Delhi High Court judgment by guiding the Central Public Information Officer (CIPO), Supreme Court to provide the requested data regarding collegium decision-making, personal assets of judges, and correspondence with the Chief Justice of India. The bench made no general judgement about the universal disclosure of the requested material. The highest court further stated that a prohibition on information disclosure cannot be enforced on the basis of collegium members’ free and open expression, and that disclosure will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

The rationale of the above judgment is as follows:

1. Transparency and Judicial Independence: The court acknowledged the importance of transparency in maintaining the public’s confidence and trust in the judiciary. It found that releasing sought information, such as collegium decision-making processes and judges’ personal assets, did not inevitably endanger the judiciary’s independence. It instead contended that transparency can improve judicial independence by promoting accountability.
2. Combining both the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court acknowledged that one’s right to information isn’t absolute and that the RTI Act sets limits and conditions. It addressed the appellant’s claim that private data, like property documents, may be exempt from disclosure under RTI Act Section 8(1)(j). It did, however, weigh this against the greater public good promoted by releasing such information.
3. Case-by-Case Determination: The court stated unequivocally that the issue of disclosure should be decided on a case-by-case basis. It did not make a sweeping decision on the universal disclosure of the requested information. Instead, it highlighted that each request for information should be evaluated on an individual basis, taking into account the specific circumstances as well as the harmony among the right to information and other interests such as privacy and judicial independence.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case valued the values of accountability and openness in the judiciary while admitting reasonable concerns about judges’ privacy and independence. It developed a framework for considering requests for information about the judiciary on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that the larger public interest is considered when deciding if data should be provided.

DEFECTS OF LAW:

1. Interference with Judicial Independence: The appellants contend that releasing details regarding judges, including their assets and contact with the Chief Justice, would undermine judicial independence. This is an understandable concern, but the court’s responsibility is to balance it with the principles of accountability and openness. The rationale for the decision implies that transparency can improve the independence of the judiciary, but the exact balancing test should be more explicit.
2. Personal information, including asset details, is exempt from publication under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, according to the appellants. However, determining what constitutes “personal information” and whether disclosure is in the public interest should be done on a case-by-case basis. The decision should provide greater information on how to apply this exemption.
3. Fiduciary connection: According to Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, the Chief Justice has a fiduciary connection with other judges and legal officials. The decision should specify the nature and scope of any fiduciary relationship, and also how it can be used to conceal facts.
4. Privacy vs. Public Interest: The respondents claim that releasing information on judicial candidates would be a violation of their privacy and would not be in the public interest. A more thorough review of the compromise among confidentiality and the public good in appointments to courts should be included in the decision.

Overall, these difficulties highlight the difficulties in balancing accountability and openness with independence of the judiciary as well as protection of privacy. The decision should address these issues thoroughly so as to offer greater legal assistance in future situations involving information disclosure under the RTI Act.

INFERENCES:

This case serves as an illustration of the delicate equilibrium between openness and an impartial judiciary. While maintaining transparency is vital for fostering public confidence and ensuring accountability, excessive disclosure of information related to judges and their communications could jeopardize the autonomy of the judiciary.

The ruling underscores that, when managed judiciously, transparency can fortify the independence of the judiciary. This particular case underscores the significance of handling requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on a case-specific basis.

The ruling recognizes the right to information as a fundamental right but acknowledges its conditionality. The RTI Act puts constraints and constraints on this privilege, which must be applied cautiously. The case emphasizes the significance of balancing a person’s freedom of privacy with the larger interest of society. This balance should be decided based on the specific facts of each request, particularly when involving highly sensitive information like appointments to judges. The decision recognizes the entitlement to know as a necessary but not absolute right.

The RTI Act limits this right, mandating its use with caution. The case emphasizes the importance of striking a balance among a person’s right to privacy and the general interest. This balance should be decided based on the particular circumstances of each request, especially when involving highly sensitive information such as judicial nominations.

The judgement expressly notes that it fails to establish a broad compulsion for the disclosure of specified sorts of court-related information. Instead, it defers disclosure decisions to be taken on an individual basis, takes into consideration the particulars associated with every request. In summary, this decision establishes an example in support of judiciary openness while admitting the necessity to balance it with other goals such as judicial independence and individual privacy.

It recognizes the right to information as an essential right, but emphasizes the significance of examining every information demand separately, taking into account either the particular facts or the larger public interest.

REFERENCES

1. Cen.Pub.Information … vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 November, 2019 (indiankanoon.org)
2. Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Supreme Court Of India on 14 August, 2020 (indiankanoon.org)

Submitted by:

Shreeyanshi Gupta

NMIMS School of Law, Bangalore