| Headnote |
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Collegium system for appointment and elevation of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts; declaration of assets by judges, etc. – Information in context of – The respondent filed three applications under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking information regarding: 1) copies of the correspondence exchanged between constitutional authorities together with file notings, relating to the appointment of three Judges of the Supreme Court, who had superseded seniority of another three Judges by an application dated 23.01.2009; 2) a copy of the resolution dated 07.05.1997 of the Judges of the Supreme Court requiring every sitting Judge and all the future judges upon assuming office to make a declaration of assets by an application dated 10.11.2007 and 3) on the basis of a newspaper report, the complete correspondence exchanged with the Chief Justice of India in regards to a Union Minister having allegedly approached a judge of the High court, through a lawyer to influence a judicial decision by an application dated 06.07.2009 – In an application dated 06.07.2009, the information was denied by the CPIO of the Supreme Court on the ground that the information sought by the respondent was not handled and dealt with by the Registry of the Supreme Court and neither maintained nor available with Registry – However, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed disclosure of information and observed that disclosure will not infringe upon the status of the Judges – The information sought in application 23.01.2009 was again denied by CPIO observing that the Supreme Court Registry did not deal with the matters pertaining to appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court – However, the CIC directed the furnishing of information – Insofar as application dated 10.11.2007 is concerned, it was also dismissed by the CPIO and the CIC again directed the CPIO of the Supreme Court to provide the information asked by the respondent in his RTI application unless, the disclosure of information was exempted by law – The appellant instituted writ petition before the Delhi High Court and the same was dismissed holding, inter alia, that the declaration of assets furnished by the Judges of the Supreme Court to Chief Justice of India and its contents constituted ‘information’, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act – The Full Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court – Aggrieved by the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court and the CIC in the RTI applications, the CPIO, Supreme Court has preferred the appeals before the Supreme Court against the order of the CIC in applications dated 06.07.2009, 23.01.2009 and the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court – Held [Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. (for himself, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, and N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)]: The information sought by the respondent in application dated 10.11.2007, regarding declaration of the assets, the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court is upheld, which had upheld the order passed by the CIC directing the CPIO, Supreme Court to furnish information on the Judges of the Supreme Court who had declared their assets – Such disclosure would not in any way, impinge upon the personal information and right to privacy of the judges – The fiduciary relationship rule in terms of cl(e) to s. 8(1) of the RTI Act is inapplicable – It would not affect the right to confidentiality of the Judges and their right to protect personal information and privacy, which would be the case where the details and contents of personal assets in the declaration are called for and sought in which event the public interest test as applicable vide s. 8(1)(j) and proviso to s.11(1) of the RTI Act would come into operation – As far as other two RTI applications dated 06.07.2009 and 23.01.2009 are concerned, these application are remitted to the CPIO, Supreme Court to re-examine the matter after following the procedure u/s. 11(1) of the RTI Act as information relates to third parties.Right to Information Act, 2005 – s.2 cl(h) and sub-cl (ii) in cl(e) to s.2 – Whether the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India are two separate public Authorities – Held [Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. (for himself, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, and N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)] : It is undebatable that the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’, as defined vide cl(h) to s.2 of the RTI Act as it has been established and constituted by or under the Constitution of India – The office of the Chief Justice or for that matter the judges is not separate from the Supreme Court and is part and parcel of the Supreme Court as a body, authority and institution – The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court are not two distinct and separate ‘public authorities’, albeit, the latter is a ‘public authority’ and the Chief Justice and the Judges together form and constitute the ‘public authority’, that is, the Supreme Court of India. Right to Information Act, 2005 – s.2 cl.(f)(i) and (j) – Information and Right to Information – Held [Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. (for himself, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, and N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)] : What is explicit as well as implicit from the definition of ‘information’ in cl.(f) to s. 2 follows and gets affirmation from the definition of ‘right to information’ that the information should be accessible by the public authority and ‘held by or under the control of any public authority’ – The words ‘under the control of any public authority’ as per their natural meaning would mean the right and power of the public authority to get access to the information – It refers to dominion over the information or the right to any material, document etc. – The words ‘under the control of any public authority’ would include within their ambit and scope information relating to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force subject to the pre-imposed conditions and restrictions as applicable to access the information.Right to Information Act, 2005 – s. 8(1)(e) – Relationship between the Chief Justice and Judges – Held [Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. (for himself, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, and N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)] : Ordinarily the relationship between the Chief Justice and Judges would not be that of fiduciary and a beneficiary – However, it is not an absolute rule/code for in certain situation and acts, fiduciary relationship may arise – Whether or not such a relationship arises in a particular situation would have to be dealt with on the tests and parameters.Right to Information Act, 2005 – Fiduciary relationship u/s. 8(1)(e) – The appellant argued that the information about the assets of judges is exempt from disclosure, by virtue of s. 8(1)(e) – Held [Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.]: The Chief Justice of India merely holds the information in accordance with the official functions and not in any fiduciary capacity – The judges who disclose their assets cannot be said to be vulnerable to and dependent on the Chief Justice of India – In these circumstances, it cannot be held that asset information shared with the Chief Justice of India, by the Judges of the Supreme Court, are held by him in a fiduciary capacity, which, if revealed, would result in breach of fiduciary duty.Right to Information Act, 2005 – s.8(1)(j) and s.11 – Held: [Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.]: ss.8 and 11 must be read together – In every case where the information requested is “personal information” within the operation of cl.(j) of sub-section 1 of s.8, the procedure of notice and objections u/s.11 must be complied with – The two provisions create a substantive systems of checks and balances which seek to balance the right of the information applicant to receive information with the third party to prevent the disclosure of personal information by permitting the letter to contest the proposed disclosure.Right to Information Act, 2005 – Public Interest – Held [Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. (for himself, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, and N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)] : The Public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to a particular information and the person.Right to Information Act, 2005 – Judicial Independence – Held : [Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. (for himself, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, and N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)]: The independence of the judiciary is a matter of ennobled public concern and directly relates to public welfare and would be one of the factors to be taken into account in weighing and applying the public interest test – Thus, when the public interest demands the disclosure of information, judicial independence has to be kept in mind while deciding the question of exercise of discretion – Reference to the principle of judicial independence is not to undermine and avoid accountability which is an aspect to be taken into account while examining the public interest in favour of disclosure of information. Right to Information Act, 2005 – Transparency, judicial independence and RTI Act – Held [Per N.V. Ramana, J.]: There needs to be balance between the three equally important concepts – As a shield, the judicial independence is the basis with which Judiciary has maintained its trust reposed by the citizens – The judiciary needs to be protected from attempts to breach its independence – Such interference requires calibration of appropriate amount of transparency in consonance with judicial independence – The right to information should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance to scuttle effective functioning of judiciary. Right to Information Act, 2005 – s.8 – non-exhaustive considerations while assessing the ‘public interest’– Held [Per N.V. Ramana, J.]: The following non- exhaustive considerations needs to be considered while assessing the ‘public interest’ under Section 8 of the RTI Act- a) Nature and content of the information; b) Consequences of non-disclosure; dangers and benefits to public; c) Type of confidential obligation; d) Beliefs of the confidant; reasonable suspicion; e) Party to whom information is disclosed; f) Manner in which information acquired; g)Public and private interests; h) Freedom of expression and proportionality |
