Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal | Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT PDF Download

Year: 2019
Jurisdiction: India
Law(s): Article 12, Article 19, Article 20, Article 21, Article 25, Article 124 of Constitution
Bench Strength: 5
Case Type/Origin: Civil Appeal
Case Status: Not Overruled

Case Summary

Facts

• This case dealt with three appeals relating to information requested under the RTI Act, which were moved by the Respondent in front of the CPIO. The first request was filed based on a newspaper article alleging influence over a judicial decision. It asked for a copy of the correspondence of the former Chief Justice of India, which was denied on the grounds that such information was not available with the Court registry.
• On appeal the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the disclosure of this information. 
• The second request asked for a complete copy of all papers and correspondence available with the Court relating to the appointment of judges through the collegium system, which was rejected by the CPIO. 
• In this petition as well, the CIC directed the disclosure of the documents sought.
• The final petition sought the disclosure of the declaration of assets made by the judges to the chief justices in the states, which was also dismissed by the CPIO. On appeal, the CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information requested.
• On further appeal, the matter was brought before a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Secretary General, Supreme Court vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (LPA 501 of 2009) which upheld the orders of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. 
• The Court linked the three cases to be heard together, and held that the cases involved substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. It therefore referred the matter to a larger bench, and the matter was listed before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the provision of the information sought by the Petitioner would be protected from release under the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act or should be released in the greater public interest.

Arguments

• The Appellants contended that disclosure of the information sought would impede the independence of judges, who are to be exempt from any publically litigated debate. The right to information was not an unfettered constitutional right, but a right available within the framework of the RTI Act, and thus must be subject to the conditions and exclusions thereunder. 
• They argued that information on the assets held by judges was personal information, and the disclosure would have no bearing on any public activity or interest. Similarly, the release of information relating to prospective candidates being considered for judicial appointments would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy and serve no larger public interest.
•  Finally, they also contended that the information on assets voluntarily disclosed by the judges to the CJI was held by the CJI in his fiduciary capacity and therefore would be protected under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. 
• The Respondent argued that the disclosure of such information would not undermine the independence of the judiciary, and would instead foster transparency and openness with respect to functions that affect the public domain. He also argued in favour of primacy to the citizens’ right to seek information. 
• The Respondent suggested that public interest in the nature of information sought outweighed the exemption given under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision

• The Supreme Court held that the RTI Act sets out a regime that enables greater access and information into the functioning of public authorities, in the furtherance of efficient and transparent governance. However, the right to know could not be absolute as it would then conflict with the right to privacy. 
• The scheme of the RTI Act acknowledges this under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11, which protect personal information and information relating to a third party, respectively. Further, the RTI Act moderates and regulates the conflict between the two rights by applying the test of larger public interest or comparative examination of public interest in disclosure of information with possible harm and injury to the protected interests.
• In dealing with the question of transparency in the appointment of judges and the potential effects on the independence of the judiciary the Court recognized four major arguments which could be invoked, to deny access to the public. These were
  • confidentiality concerns;
  • data protection;
  • reputation of those being considered in the selection process, especially those whose candidature/eligibility stood negated;
  • and potential chilling effect on future candidates given the degree of exposure and public scrutiny involved.
• Thus, while judicial independence was a matter of public interest, it would be necessary to balance it with judicial independence. The Court held that there was no definite answer to this question, and that accountability and independence of the judiciary would have to be balanced depending upon the public interest in each case.
• The appeals were partially allowed to the extent that the CPIO, Supreme Court was directed to re-examine the matters relating to third parties, following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. However, the information relating to judges’ assets was directed to be disclosed.