Latest News
Back
Document:
Case Analysis: 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
JUDGES: D. Y. Chandrachud, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjiv Khanna, Deepak Gupta, NV Ramana
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, three appeals were filed which arose from three applications filed by the respondent, Subhash Chandra Agarwal before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India.
Subhash Chandra Agarwal himself filed a Right to Information Application to CPIO of the Supreme Court of India to furnish information about the complete correspondence of the Chief Justice of India as it was found that the Union Minister had influenced the judicial decision making in the High Court of Madras judge, Justice R. Raghupathi. the second Application was filed asking to furnish information about correspondence between the Constitutional authorities relating to the appointment of three Supreme Court Judges-, Justice H.L. Dutta, Justice A.K. Ganguly Justice R.M. Lodha which superseded other senior Judges in the hierarchy. In the third Application, it was filed requesting the declaration of assets of judges made by them to Chief Justice and Chief Justice of State High Courts.
On the filing of these applications, the CPIO, Supreme Court denied furnishing the information asked in the RTI application by stating that the information sought is available with the registry of Supreme Court of India.
Upon denial of providing information, Subhash Chandra Agarwal filed an appeal to Central Information Commission (CIC), and on 6 January 2009 the Central Information Commission ordered Supreme Court to disclose the information asked in the RTI application and to follow the procedure mentioned under, section 6(3) of Right to Information Act,2005.
Not pleased by the order of CIC, the CPIO of the Supreme Court, filed a writ petition before High Court under article 226 of the constitution but it ruled in favor of the respondent Further CPIO took matters to the Supreme Court. The first two appeals were filed in the Supreme Court against the Chief Information Commissioners order which directs access to the requested information. The third appeal w against the order passed by the full bench of Delhi High Court regarding the same.
ISSUES
1) Whether the disclosure of information to the public relating to the office of Chief Justice of India and collegium system amounts to the violation of judicial independence?
2) Whether section 8(1)(j) exempt the information sought in the public interest?
3) Whether the disclosure of the information requested relating to judges would bar or prevent the constitutional authorities from expressing views freely and frankly?
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
Petitioner:
The learned advocates from the side of the petitioner in his arguments said that the disclosure of the information would hamper the independence of the judiciary and judges are not supposed to be subjected to any “litigation public debate”.
As per the Right to Information Act 2005, a person is not allowed to be provided with all the requested details as there exist several restrictions and conditions mentioned in the Act. Under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information which is requested in this case is exempted and cannot be made public.
Disclosure of information relating to the appointment of judges would come under the exempted category and if it is disclosed it would amount to a breach of their privacy and against the larger public interest.
Respondent:
The respondent argued that the disclosure of information does not interfere with the independence of the judiciary and the person under the RTI Act 2005 has a right to seek information in fact the disclosure helped in transparency and would serve the larger public interest.
Further there no fiduciary relationship that exists between CJI and other constitutional functionaries under section 8(1)(e) of the Right To Information Act 2005. It was also contended that the fiduciary relationship can only exist with the public. Further the respondent contended that “the duty of public servant is not to act for the benefit of another public servant”
JUDGEMENT
After hearing arguments from both the parties and considering the facts of the case The Hon'ble Supreme Court On 13 of November 2019 dismissed the appeal and ruled in favor of the respondent and upheld the Delhi High Court judgment by directing the Central Public Information Officer (CIPO), Supreme Court to furnish the requested information regarding collegium decision-making, personal assets of judges, correspondence with Chief Justice of India. The bench didn’t come up with any general decision relating to the universal disclosure of the requested information.
The apex court further opined that a bar on disclosure of information can not be imposed on the ground of free and frank expression of collegium members and the disclosure will be based on case to case basis.
Document:
