Secretary General, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

Facts

Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Respondent) made an application to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (CPIO) requesting to furnish

• a copy of the 1997 resolution of the Full Court of the Supreme Court and
• information on any such declaration of assets etc. ever filed by Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court and further information if High Court Judges are submitting declarations about their assets etc. to respective Chief Justices in States.

A copy of the 1997 resolution was made available to the applicant and the second request was rejected. On appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the CIC stated that the Supreme Court is a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act since it was established by the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Supreme Court cannot disclaim being public authorities. CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information asked by the applicant in his application. CPIO (Appellant) challenged the direction of CIC before the single judge, which directed the information sought to be furnished. Thus, an appeal before a three-judge bench was referred.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

• Whether the respondent had any right to information regarding declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court under the 1997 Resolution?
• If the answer to question (1) above is in the affirmative, whether CJI held the "information" in his fiduciary capacity, within the meaning of the expression used in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act?
• Whether the information about the declaration of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act?

Holding

Right to information regarding declarations: It was held that the respondent had the right to information under Section 2(j) of the Act regarding the making of declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court under the 1997 Resolution.

The fiduciary capacity of CJI: The CJI cannot be said to have superior knowledge or be better trained to aid or control affairs or conduct of other Supreme Court judges, as they hold independent office and there is no hierarchy in their judicial functions. Section 8(e) does not cover asset declarations made by the Supreme Court Judges and held by the CJI. The CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship.

Exemption of information: The conflict between the right to personal privacy and the public interest in the disclosure of personal information was recognized by the legislature by exempting purely personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act including tax returns, medical records, etc. If, however, the applicant can show sufficient public interest in disclosure, the bar (preventing disclosure) is lifted and after duly notifying the third party (i.e. the individual concerned with the information or whose records are sought) and after considering his views, the authority can disclose it. The particulars sought by the respondent are not exempted under Section 8(1)(j) since the only information the applicant sought was whether the 1997 Resolution was complied with.

Final Decision Appeal Dismissed

Ratio

Judges of the Supreme Court are public authorities under the Right to Information Act.