Summary
The Constitution Bench held that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls within the Supreme Court as a public authority under the RTI Act. Information on whether judges filed asset declarations was disclosable. Requests concerning judicial appointments and alleged influence were remitted for third-party notice and fresh decisions balancing transparency, privacy, confidentiality and judicial independence.
Issues
- Whether the Chief Justice’s office formed part of the Supreme Court public authority under the RTI Act.
- Whether fiduciary capacity or privacy barred the requested information.
- How third-party interests and judicial independence affected disclosure.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(e), (f), (h), (i) and (j), Right to Information Act, 2005The Chief Justice’s office formed part of the Supreme Court public authority. Information held or controlled in an official capacity was within the Act, subject to its exemptions. (¶¶ Khanna J: 11, Khanna J: 12, Khanna J: 13, Khanna J: 14, Khanna J: 15, Khanna J: 16, Khanna J: 17, Khanna J: 18, Khanna J: 19, Khanna J: 20, Khanna J: 21, Khanna J: 22, Khanna J: 23)
- Section 8(1)(e) and (j), Right to Information Act, 2005Fiduciary relationship was not ordinarily established between the Chief Justice and judges; disclosure of personal information required the statutory public-interest assessment. (¶¶ Khanna J: 25, Khanna J: 32, Khanna J: 33, Khanna J: 34, Khanna J: 35, Khanna J: 47, Khanna J: 53, Khanna J: 59, Khanna J: 72, Khanna J: 73, Khanna J: 74, Khanna J: 75, Khanna J: 76, Khanna J: 78, Khanna J: 79, Khanna J: 80, Khanna J: 88, Khanna J: 89)
- Sections 10(1) and 11, Right to Information Act, 2005Severability and third-party notice protected exempt and confidential information. The two correspondence requests required reconsideration after notice and hearing of affected third parties. (¶¶ Khanna J: 29, Khanna J: 30, Khanna J: 60, Khanna J: 61, Khanna J: 62, Khanna J: 69, Khanna J: 72, Khanna J: 73, Khanna J: 88, Khanna J: 89, Khanna J: 90)
Held
- The Supreme Court is a public authority and includes the Chief Justice and judges; the Chief Justice’s office is not a distinct public authority separate from it. (¶¶ Khanna J: 11, Khanna J: 12, Khanna J: 13, Khanna J: 14, Khanna J: 15)
- The relationship between Chief Justice and judges is ordinarily not fiduciary, though a particular transaction may require examination. No fiduciary exemption barred information on whether the asset declarations had been filed. (¶¶ Khanna J: 32, Khanna J: 33, Khanna J: 34, Khanna J: 35, Khanna J: 89)
- Whether declarations were made differs from their contents. The former did not invade privacy; requests for details of personal assets would require the public-interest test and the applicable third-party procedure. (¶¶ Khanna J: 59, Khanna J: 89)
- Privacy, confidentiality and the right to information require case-specific balancing. Public interest concerns public welfare rather than mere curiosity; neither privacy nor information invariably prevails. (¶¶ Khanna J: 72, Khanna J: 73, Khanna J: 74, Khanna J: 75, Khanna J: 76, Khanna J: 78, Khanna J: 80)
- Judicial independence is relevant to the balancing exercise and may itself require transparency. Accountability reinforces independence; final collegium decisions and underlying personal inputs may require different assessments. (¶¶ Khanna J: 86, Khanna J: 87, Khanna J: 88)
- The requests concerning appointment correspondence and alleged influence required fresh determination after third-party notice and hearing. The Court declined specific disclosure findings in those parties’ absence. (¶ Khanna J: 90)
Result
Civil Appeal 2683 of 2010 dismissed: disclosure of which Supreme Court judges had filed asset declarations was upheld. Civil Appeals 10044 and 10045 of 2010 partly allowed and remitted to the CPIO for third-party notice, hearing and fresh decisions under the stated principles. Disclosure of all asset contents or all collegium correspondence was not ordered.