RESEARCH AREA: Right to Information

RESEARCH TOPIC : Analysis of the Case which brought Chief Justice of India under
the ambit of Right to Information
RESEARCH PROBLEM: Whether the Right of Information is absolute in the case of
office of Chief Justice of India

ABSTRACT
Right to information can be considered as an one of the most important rights in the Indian
Democracy and also can be known as an one of the most important information legislation
across the world .It can also be said that Right to information has created an new era where
there is an complete transparency and accountability in the working of the public offices in
the country. The Legal System of India is to be considered one of the oldest legal system of
the world and in the democratic country where judiciary can be considered as a keeper of
the rights of the citizens ,its working has to be completely transparent to gain the trust of
the people as the people has the full right to know about the working of the institutions
which includes Judiciary. The Recent Judgement on the Case of CPIO/Supreme Court of
India vs Subhash Chandra is to be considered as an important step towards the
transparency in the working of the judiciary

Key Words :Judiciary, Democracy , Legal System

INTRODUCTION
ORIGIN OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
The first and the most important movement for the right to information in India was
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangthan in Rajasthan . it was an organization which was formed to
help the poor daily wage workers and farmers who are deprived of their rights .The
organization started their movement from the base level to reach the root cause of the
problem where they demanded information from the officials about the wages of the
workers .There were many schemes for the benefit of the poor people but somehow they
were not able to get benefited from the schemes so the organization used to question about
the benefits not given to the poor wage workers .The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangthan also
came up with the new concept of Jan Sunvai through which they used to address the
problems of the people which was narrated by the sufferers of that problem only and then
accordingly they used to demand information regarding the problem from the officials
.After the success of the movement of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangthan ,people started to
question the decisions of the government officials and started demanding answers from the
government officials .It can be also said the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangthan can be
considered as an change in Right to Information as it showed to the people that even
illiterate people of the country can demand their rights. These social movements across the
country led to the formation of the National Campaign for the People’s Right to
Information in 1996.After that Various state pass right to information laws in their states
such as Delhi , Maharashtra. And then ,The National Freedom of Information Act was
passed in 2002 but it was not notified at that time but in 2005 the new elected government
passed The Right to Information Act 2005.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Government Information is considered to be a natural resource for the country

.Information can be of great use if used in careful and useful manner , And it can be said
the other resources which are money ,labour , raw material can be used in the development
of country if we have information about how to utilize it to the fullest level.

The government of the country has the information about everything , Whether it can be
about citizen or the money that is kept in the bank and many more . So these kinds of
information is protected by the Government, we can say that the government and their
official are trustees of information.

NEED OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION

Democracy is also known as people government . And people are only one to decide about
future of country. And all the decisions taken by government of the country, must include
the people opinion and any opinion for a particular matter can be only given when we have
all the information related to it. So this will help the government to solve people’s problem
in comparatively easy way.

Accountability and Transparency are considered to be one of the most important features
of this democratic government . Accountability says that the work done by the government
official must be in the interest of public and they can be held accountable for their actions
by the public so to provide a better picture of what is happening , we need the information
regarding that . Transparency – in simple words are we can say that nothing is hidden
everything is in front of us . Transparency in democratic country means that all the
government activities are performed in an open way with keeping any kind of secrets . To
keep the transparency in government, we need access of all the information to the
public .Government officials are handed various power by the government with the respect
to their position in the government offices. So if there is no transparency in the work of
government offices, there will be no fear in them to get caught for the wrong they
committed. So these powers can be misused by the government officials ,and it might get
the people in the trouble.

Government has made many schemes and programs for the development of poor people of
the country .Every in the budget ,a significant portion is given in the implication of these
schemes but there is a major problem that schemes which are made for the poor people in
the rural areas are not benefiting them and other than they are not even aware of these kind
of schemes .So the question remains the same that that when no facilities are provided to
them where does the amount present in the fund goes .So to stop all these ,we need to have
an access to information of all the government documents

THE FREEDOM OF THE INFORMATION ACT ,2002

Before the enactment of The Freedom of Information Act 2002,the supreme court had
already considered the right to information as a constitutionally protected fundamental
right. But after that there was no legislation to consider right to information as an
fundamental right. and in the several state government started to lay down some rules for
public to access the information. Then after that The Freedom to Information Act 2002 was
introduced and it was passed by both the houses of the parliament and the assent of the
president was also granted but it never got notified .hence The Freedom of Information Act
2002 never came into effect.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT , 2005

Right to Information Act ,2005 was enacted in the tenure of UPA Government which was
headed by Prime Minister Dr. M. Manmohan Singh in the year of 2005

Right to Information Act empowers the citizen to fight against any kind of disruptive
administrative function ,corruptions etc. the Act allows the people to get access to all the
information regarding the government functioning.

Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005,any citizen of India may request
information from the” public authority” which is required to reply expeditiously or within
thirty days. In case of the matter involving the petitioner’s life and liberty, in that case the
information has to be given within the span of 48 hours. The act also requires every public
authority to computerize their records for the wide dissemination and to proactively
publish certain categories of information so that the citizen needs minimum recourse to
request for information formally1. Right to Information is not included in the fundamental
right in the constitution of India but it is covered under Article (19)(A) Freedom of Speech
and Expression and Article 21 Right to life guaranteed by the constitution. The authority

1 Noronha Fedrick(2010).Access to knowledge a guide for everyone Consumer International.

which was mentioned in the Right to Information Act 2005 was public authorities. Public
Information Officer in the public authorities perform the quasi judicial function that is to
keep an check on all the applications .

The Right to Information Act has been codified as the Fundamental Right for the citizens
of india. And the citizens were seemed to be satisfied by this act but suddenly it was
overridden by the Whistleblower Protection Act 2011 which contains the mechanism or we
can say that the system is provided to investigate the corrupt officers or the officers which
were misusing their power. This act also ensured the safety of people who have exposed
the illegal activities of the government officers etc.

Under the scope of the Right to Information 2005

The act is applicable to the whole of the country .it covers all the constitutional bodies that
is executive body , legislative body and the Judiciary any other institution in the country
which is formed by the parliament.

Working of the authority under Right to Information Act 2005

1. Two major bodies which are responsible for the good governance of the Right to
Information Act 2005
i. Central Information Commissioner
It includes 1 central information commissioner and 10 information
commissioner who are appointed by the President of India. The main
function of the chief information commissioner was to act upon the
complains received by the people which they faced during the procedure to
access the information.

State Information Commissioner It entertains complaints regarding to government

authorities, financial institutions which people have faced and it is done at the state level.
They are appointed by the governor of the respective states.

ii. It entertains complaints regarding to government authorities, financial

institutions which people have faced and it is done at the state level. They
are appointed by the governor of the respective states.

The time period specified under The Right to Information Act 2005-In the normal course
of time it would take around 30 days to the access of the information but if the concern
about the life and liberty of the person, the citizens of the country can get access to the
information in 48 hours
 Organizations exempted from the Right to Information Act 2005

Under the purview of the second schedule of the Right to Information Act 2005,25
government organizations are exempted from the rules of the Right to Information
Act 2005
These includes intelligence agencies , Central Economic Intelligence Bureau ,
research bodies working with countries security agency.
The Directorate of Enforcement , Narcotics Control Board, Special Service Bureau,
Special Branch of police in Andaman and Nicobar Islands .But these organisations
are not totally immune , and if the panel believes in the query of the crime
committed by the murderer , there is a chance of next hearing.
Provisions for the Non Disclosure of the Information
• Indian Evidence Act
Some Provisions of the Indian evidence act i.e. section 123 , 124 and 162
which enables them to prevent us from disclosing the information .And in
this if he asks to disclose some information which doesn’t seem correct so
just say that they can provide her in the situation and the communication
between two officials should not go out

• Atomic Energy Act 1912

It states that the information regarding the functioning of Central
Government cannot be disclosed in any kind of the pressure or any reason

• Central Civil Servants Act It states that the government servant should not
check or communicate with the official documents .it would be only done if
there is any kind of special order of the government.
• The Official Secret Act 1923
It state that any government document can be marked as the confidential by
the government servant if he feels that it is need of the hour to prevent its
publication in the newspapers and magazines.

Important Judgements pronouncement related to the right to information

• Bennet Colemn vs Union of India2

2 AIR 1973 SC 106

 In this case, the supreme court held that the freedom of the press is an
important facet of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a).

• State of U.P vs Raj Narain3

The judgement of this case was passed in 1975.it is considered as an
important case as supreme court held that the right to receive information
from the electronic media was included in the freedom of speech and
expression.

• People’s Union of civil liberties vs Union of India4

It was considered to be one of the most important case as in this case the
right to information was elevated to the human right which made the
government of the country accountable and transparency.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT 2019

The Right to Information Amendment Act 2019 that amends the Right to
Information Act 2005 which was introduced by the Lok Sabha
KEY FEATURES OF THE ACT
• Term of Information Commissioner
Under the act the chief information commissioner and information
commissioner both at central and the state level were appointed to
implement provisions of right to information act. According to the
amendment ,the term of the commissioner is not fixed they can be removed
anytime.

• Determination of the salary

Earlier the salaries and allowances of the chief information commissioner
and information commissioner were same as the salaries and allowance of
the election officers . according to the amendment the salary , allowances of
the chief information commissioner and commissioner at state and central
level was fixed by the central level.

3 1975 (004)SCC 0428 SC

4 2003(001) SCW 2353SC

• The new act removed the provision that if the commissioner and chief
commissioner are getting pensions from the previous government then the
salary of the present will be reduced to that level.

DRAWBACKS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

• The citizen of the country asked to give different kinds of information

which is not even having any kind of the public interest and the people have
different motive behind it as ,it can be the reason that they want to get
publicity by filing an Right to Information Application or they simply they
wanted to irritate and harass the government officials who are supposed to
give them the information.

• Right to Information Act can be very useful for the citizens of the country
and even people are using it but it will of no use if it is not reaching to the
each and every citizen of the country irrespective of the place they live.as
the people in the rural areas of the country doesn’t even know what is an
right to information act and while some are illiterate so they are not able to
understand the working of it.

• And as we all know the main aim of the right to information act was to
provide with the information to the citizens of India but what can be done
by the officials when the record of the government information is not
properly maintained.

• As the chief Information commissioner and State information

Commissioner are known as the main pillars of the Right to Information
Act to enforce the act .but they do not have the adequate authority to
enforce the right to information Act ,wecan all observe that the whole
power of the enforcement is in the hands of the central government.

HISTORY OF JUDICIARY

In Madras (India) in 1665 , the first jury trial was happened and was
decided by the English jury in which a girl name Asentia Dewas was
charged for the murder of her slave ,six Englishmen and six Portuguese but
was not proven guilty.
When East India Company began to develop in India they decided to
introduce dual system of court was implemented in the jury. there were two
types of court that were crown courts and company courts
Then the Indian Penal Code (1860) and the Code of Criminal Procedure
(1863)were adopted by the crown government of India
After the independence of the India , the jury system was not favor by the
people of the country and not consider it as an important so it was abolished
in 1973 by the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Before 1945 ,there were no different organs of the government ,as the
executive and the judiciary used to work together and as they were working
together the judiciary would have not much say on the decisions of the
executive .In 1945 Sapru committee Report ,it advised them that the
judiciary must be separated from the executive and for this they have a way
also they said to constituent assembly that it should fix the tenure and the
salary of the judges so now only on the basis of their bad behavior towards
the people who came to him for justice
In 1949 it was voiced out that the Judiciary must be independent from the
executive and must have their own way of thinking and not only this if
judiciary finds a mistake in the work of executive ,you can pinpoint it ,so
that it doesn’t create problem later.

JUDICIARY IN INDIA

In democratic country like India ,the government of the country is divided

into three organs i.e. legislative which makes the law ,Executive which
implements the law made by legislative and lastly judiciary ,it interprets the
laws made by the legislative. All of them are very important for the good
governance of the country and also it is true that the judiciary has a very
unique role to play,
The real meaning of the law is not what is written in the constitution it is
what the judge interprets it while giving the judgement and interpret it
according to the situations
Judiciary is to be considered the most important organ of the government as
it has the most important responsibility on its shoulders that is to give
 justice to people who are suffering .It is expected from the judiciary that it
should understand the constitutional values to the fullest as Judiciary has
been considered as the custodian of rights of the citizen.
And moreover we all know what is written in the preamble about justice it
says that each and every citizen of the country will be entitled with social ,
economic and political justice .
Judiciary also plays a very important role in ensuring the process of the
fairness should be followed in the administration and governance of the
country.

ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN THE COUNTRY

• The most important feature of the judiciary was to give justice to the people
,so they come with a glint of the hope that they would get justice and the
criminal should get punished
• Another important role of the judiciary was the interpretation of the
laws .we all know that simply with the words written in the constitution we
can take the decision so it means that law should be understood its meaning
and in which context it is written.
• Statutory Interpretation
The meaning of the law in the statute is clear and explicit but this does
make work of judiciary as there comes many cases where a dispute arises
on the confusion of the meaning of the word written in the law but judges
understood that they have to interpret the law according to the situations of
the case.
• Judiciary keeps a check on the functioning of the legislative and executive
from the far and doesn’t interfere in their matters until it is not necessary.
• It is true that judiciary also plays an important role as advisor and because
of these president and prime minister always wanted to take the opinion on
the matters from the court.
• Judiciary was considered as the guardian of the constitution which is
considered as the supreme law of the land

INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY IN INDIA

An independent judiciary is very essential for the free society and the
constituent democracy. The independence of the judiciary was ensured by
the constitution , legislation and suitable norms.
 It relates to the separation of power which means independence from the
legislative and executive
The independence of the Judiciary means that the judge must clearly think
about the decision and it should not be influenced by the people.In the
democratic politics ,the supreme power is shared by the three principal
organs indeed it is the responsibility of judiciary is to keep vigilant over the
functioning of government of the country.
It is true that the constitution of the india does not completely adhere to the
separation of power but it is also kept in check that there is no interference
in their work by each other
We all know that the judiciary had been assigned an important task that is to
protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.SO now when
they had taken this decision ,there will be more fights with them so we need
a team of strong people who are fearless ,courageous and strong in their
opinion.
The most important part of the independence of the judiciary is its
constitution power just like executive and legislative has its own.it must
ensure administrative independence to the judiciary which means complete
supervision of the judiciary on its staff.

SHOULD SUPREME COURT COME UNDER THE PUVIEW OF

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

ADAVANTAGES IF SUPREME COURT COMES UNDER RTI ACT

• It will increase the amount of transparency in the case of appointment of the

judges in the supreme court and High Court , As we all know that are no
specifics criteria given by which the judges are appointed by the
legislators .and of course if they are appointed by the legislators they are
going to take side of state in upcoming events.
• It will reduce the chance of the biasness in the selection of the judges of the
high court and supreme court .and it will a chance to those who definitely
deserve that chance top prove themselves
• In the present time there is no one to check upon the work which was done
by the court so a little carelessness is seen but if they come under the
purview of the act they will be answerable to citizens of India which makes
them more accountable
 • In the democratic country , the faith of people plays a very important role in
the country so if supreme court will come under the purview of right to
information act ,people’s faith towards judiciary will increase as they will
get to know how the judiciary works.
• It will also decrease the need of people to intervene in the judicial
appointment.

DISADVANTAGES IF SUPREME COURT COMES UNDER THE

PURVIEW OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
• It would hamper with the independence of judiciary and then the citizens
would ask to disclose about the judge’s personal life which is not good.
• It will increase the burden on the shoulders of the judiciary as if supreme
court comes under RTI every needed to be answered by the supreme court.
• It can also challenge the decision making of the supreme court since now
the citizens are allowed to question the supreme court

VERDICT OF SUPREME COURT ON THE CASE OF CPIO/SUPREME COURT

VS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL

CASE TITLE: Central Public Information Officer/Supreme Court vs Subhash Chandra

Agarwal

DATE OF DECISION:13 November 2019

JUDGES: D.Y. Chandrachud, Ranjan Gogoi , Sanjiv Khanna , Deepak Gupta and N,V,
Ramana

PARTIES OF THE CASE

PETITIONER :Central public service officer and Supreme court of India

RESPONDENT; Subhash Chandra Agarwal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, three appeals were filed which arises from three different Applications filed by
respondent, Subhash Chandra Agarwal before Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
Supreme Court.
The three Applications were-
1) In the first application, Subhash Chandra filed Right to information Application to
CPIO 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 of
Madras High Court judge, Justice R. Reghupathi.

2) In the second RTI Application was filed regarding a request to furnish information
about correspondence between the Constitutional authorities relating to appointment of
three Supreme Court Judges- Justice A.K. Ganguly, Justice H.L. Dutta, Justice R.M. Lodha
which superseded other senior Judges.

3) In the third Application was filed for furnishing information relating to the
declaration of assets of judges made by them to Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of
States.

On filing of these Application, the CPIO, Supreme Court denied fir furnishing requested
information 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 appeal to Central
Information Commission (CIC), and on 6 January, 2009 the Central Information
Commission ordered Supreme Court to disclose the requested information and to follow
the procedure mentioned under, section 6(3) of Right to Information Act,2005.

Upon aggrieved by the order of CIC, Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), filed writ
petition before High Court but it ruled in favor of respondent. Further CPIO filed appeals
before Supreme Court of India. The first two appeals were filed in the Supreme Court
against the CIC order which directs access to information. The third appeal was filed
against the order passed by the full bench of Delhi High Court.

ISSUES OF THE PARTIES

1. Whether the disclosure of the information relating to the office of chief justice
of India and the collegium system amounts to the violation of judicial
independence.
2. Is the information in the context of the collegium system for appointment and
elevation of judges to the supreme court and high courts :declaration of the
assets of judges protected under right to information act ,2005.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
• Firstly the petitioner argued that the disclosure of personal information
related to the judges would impede the independence of the judges.
 • Further the petitioner argued that the Right to Information is not an
absolute right and it is subjected to the restrictions
• The petitioner argued that as per section 8(1)(J) of the right to
information act .and according to him information on assets will fall
under the section 8(1)(j) and it is exempted.
• It was said that the judges declared that personal information to the
chief justice in his fiduciary capacity.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
• The respondent argued that the disclosure of information does not intend
to do anything with the independence to judiciary but it would bring
more transparency and that could be better for the working of judiciary
• He argued that information sought serves a very high larger interest and
so in that case it outweighs the privilege of exemption as per section
8(1)(j).
• He also argued that there is no fiduciary relationship between chief
justice and the other judges as mentioned under the section 8(1)(j)
which can be the reason that they are holding back the information.
• As in this case Reserve Bank of India vs Jayanti Lal N. Mistry 5,the
respondent argued that the it is not allowed for one public servant to act
in benefit of the another public servant.
• He also argued that if there is only fiduciary relationship then there is no
problem in the disclosure as it serves larger public interest .

JUDGEMENT
The majority of the judgement was authored by the Justice Sanjiv
Khanna Jwhile covering following points:
• One of the main issue was that whether to mention the supreme court
and office of Chief Justice of India would be considered as single entity
or will be considered separate entity .but according to the
judges ,Supreme court is an public authority under the sec 2(h) RTI act
as mentioned in the article 124 in the Indian constitution and office of
chief justice and office of other judges are included in the supreme court
so office of chief justice is an public authority.
• He further states that the section 3 which points out that the right to
information isn’t the absolute right but with some restrictions present
with it .he said that when any information is demanded , we have to
5 (2016) 3 SCC 525
 ensure that there is a balance on right to privacy and public authority.it
was further that any information which is confidential or which can
violate effective working should not be disclosed.
• According to him ,fiduciary relationship is understood in a capacity in
reference of the specific beneficiary who is expected to be protected.
The judges of the supreme court shares fiduciary relationship and
disclosure of such communication will depend on the test and parameter
expressed on the particular situation.
• After that he pointed out that the word ‘public interest ‘is used
repeatedly and now it needs to be defined to get the clarity.so then he
says that the good which will be caused after the disclosure must be
high than the burden of weighing the breach of privacy and
confidentiality
• .Justice D.Y. Chandrachud :he laid emphasis on the public
accountability on the office of chief justice of India and the office of
other judges. He emphasized that the disclosing the information lead to
the better transparency and it would not lead to break of trust between
the judges. and he also talked about maintain the balance between the
right to privacy and right to information.
• Justice N.V. Ramana too agreed with the fair disclosure but he remained
silent on the RTI applications.

CONCLUSION

The supreme court took a very long time to deliver the judgement .after the judgement the
office of chief justice of India became more accountable and transparent

Though it said that the office of chief justice of India is under the right to information act
but it also maintains the dignity and privacy of the judges and if it can to notice that any
RTI application is filed which infringes the right to privacy of the judges than these
applications need not to be entertained.

The supreme court also clearly states that which information about the judiciary can be
disclosed an it obviously doesn’t include the personal information of the judges

Supreme court also widens the scope of information which can be restricted to be disclose
under section 8(1)(j) by ruling that the personal information can be denied
Personal information according to present judgement includes marks obtained ,grades and
answer sheets , professional record ,qualification , performance , evaluation reports , ACRs
,disciplinary proceedings , assets , liabilities ,lending ,burrowing .these are the personal
information which needs to be protected from unwarranted invasion.6

The judgement also implies that they cannot ask about the criteria by which judges are
appointed ,their names can be disclosed

From this whole judgement I can understand that the supreme court played very smartly as
supreme court didn’t hurt the faith of the public by not taking office of Chief Justice of
India under RTI Act and also at the same it maintained the independence of Judiciary
though not directly but indirectly .

6 Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar . office of CJI comes under RTI Act supreme court upholds the court.13 Nov
2019https://thewire.in/law/cji-under-rti-act-supreme-court