IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 1

SUPREME COURT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF RTI

A PROJECT SUBMITTED TO

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

IN THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE AWARD OF

DEGREE OF B.A.LLB.

SUBMITTED TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
DR AMRITA RATHI PUSHPAM
(ASSISTANT PROF. OF LAW) ROLL NO. –
2020

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA, PUNJAB

SUBMISSION YEAR: 2023
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 2

DECLARATION

IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PROJECT WORK PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT

ENTITLED “SUPREME COURT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF RTI” EMBODIES THE
RESULTS OF ORIGINAL WORKS CARRIED OUT BY ME. ALL IDEAS AND
REFERENCES HAVE BEEN DULY ACKNOWLEDGED.

PUSHPAM

ROLL NO. 2020

IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our Principal- DR TEJINDER KAUR
as well as my IT/RTI Law Teacher- DR AMRITA RATHI under whose guidance I have got
this golden opportunity to work on this wonderful project on the topic-SUPREME COURT
UNDER THE PURVIEW OF RTI. This has also helped me in doing a lot of research and I have
come across many new ideas and concepts.

I would also like to extend a sincere thanks to my Parents who have provided me with every
kind of support required in the completion of this project. Last but not the least; I would also
like to thank the Almighty for giving me enough strength to finish this project. I am really
thankful to all of them.

THANKS AGAIN TO ALL THOSE WHO HELPED ME.

IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 4

INDEX

INTRODUCTION 5

THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY IN THE JUDICIARY THROUGH RTI:......................................5

CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................6

ANALYSIS 7

 TIMELINE.........................................................................................................................7

 ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT........................................................................................8

CONCLUSION 11

REFERENCES 12
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 5

INTRODUCTION

Right to Information (RTI) is a Fundamental Right guaranteed to the citizens of India. It was
introduced by the Right to Information Act, 2005 which seeks to mandate disclosure of
information by the government bodies. Under this act, any person can make such requests to
public bodies, and the concerned authorities will have to respond with the information unless
legally compelling reasons stop them from doing so.

RTI has always been seen as a crucial tool for countering corruption, mismanagement as well
as abuses in working of the government bodies. And, it primarily stems from the Right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression as provided under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The fundamental objective of this act is to empower the citizens, thereby promoting
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities under the central
government as well as the state governments.

Judiciary, as we all are aware, is one of the three organs of the state, the other two being the
Legislature and the Executive. Legislature and Executive have always been under the ambit
of the RTI act but, its relation with Judiciary has not been the same mainly due to the reason
that the independence of Judiciary has been enshrined in the basic structure doctrine.
Therefore, it had always been feared that subjecting this independent organ of the
government to RTI could take away its freedom.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 6

THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY IN THE JUDICIARY THROUGH RTI:

● Upholding Democratic Values: A cornerstone of a vibrant democracy is the transparency

of its institutions. The judiciary, as one of the three pillars of democracy, should be
accountable to the public. Inclusion under the RTI Act would ensure that citizens have
access to crucial information about the functioning of the Supreme Court, such as case-
related details, administrative decisions, and judicial expenses. This transparency is vital
for maintaining public trust in the judicial system.

● Accountability and Checks and Balances: The principle of checks and balances is

fundamental in any democracy. When the judiciary, which has the power to interpret and
uphold the constitution, is not subject to adequate scrutiny, it can lead to an imbalance of
power. Bringing the Supreme Court under the RTI Act would create a mechanism for
citizens to question decisions and actions, thus strengthening the system of checks and
balances.

● Public Trust and Confidence: Inclusion under the RTI Act can enhance public trust and

confidence in the judiciary. When citizens can obtain information about the Court's
workings, it demystifies the legal process and fosters a sense of inclusivity. A more
informed citizenry is likely to have greater respect for and faith in the judicial system.

CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS

● Privacy of Judges: One primary concern raised against including the Supreme Court

under the RTI Act is the privacy and security of judges. There is a need to strike a balance
between transparency and safeguarding the personal information and safety of judges.

● Judicial Independence: Critics argue that subjecting the Supreme Court to the RTI Act

might infringe on its independence. However, safeguards can be put in place to protect
sensitive information while ensuring accountability.

Eventually, in 2019, the Supreme Court held that the Office of the Chief Justice of India
comes under the ambit of the RTI. The analysis that we take up is with respect to the process
of inclusion of Judiciary under the Right to Information as we go through the relevant
judgement explaining how the things have changed over the last decade and led us to the
present scenario.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 7
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 8

ANALYSIS

● As already mentioned, the Right to Information Act came in the year 2005. Under this

Act, every public body is to be included in the RTI. And for a particular body to get an
exemption from RTI obligations, it needs to be listed under Section 24 of the statute.
Judiciary, though, does not find its mention under this section; therefore, it becomes clear
that the provisions of the RTI should bound judiciary.

● But, that has not happened in the last decade for, the Judiciary has remained reluctant in

getting bound by the relevant rules in turn, getting itself a kind of immunity from the Act.
On the other hand, attempts to make Judiciary more accountable and responsive to the
information sought by the citizens started in 2007 itself.

� TIMELINE

● On November 11, 2007, RTI Activist Mr. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, filed a plea in the

Supreme Court of India requesting information on the assets of judges. But the same was
refused to be revealed by the court. In response, the first appeal stood filed at the Supreme
Court's registry and this request too got denied. Mr. Agarwal, then, approached the
Central Information Commission which thereafter, in 2009, asked the SC to disclose
information of judges’ assets, for the office of the Chief Justice of India, came under RTI.
The Supreme Court, on receiving this order, went to the Delhi High Court challenging its
validity which led to a temporary stay of the CIC order.

● Arguments given by SC—The Supreme Court was of the view that asset declaration by

the Judges would come under Personal Information, so that was not liable to be declared
under the RTI Act as there are necessary provisions in the act which exempts one from
disclosing personal information. They further reckoned that Judges could not be treated
the same way as the politicians when it came to asset declaration. Also, it was argued that
bringing Judiciary under RTI and allowing too much of transparency could eventually
take away the independent nature of the Judicial Organ.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 9

● Verdict of the HC—On September 2, 2009, single-judge bench of the High Court came

up with the decision that CJI's Office is accountable under the RTI Act and thus, the
assets need to be declared under the law. This verdict got challenged by the Supreme
Court before the division bench of the Delhi HC in response to which a 3-judge bench
was constituted. Thereafter, this special bench observed that the declaration of assets by
the judges to the CJI was binding on them. Finally, on January 12, 2010, the ruling was
delivered stating that the Office of CJI was under the ambit of the RTI Act.

● Onset of the 2019 SC Judgement—In 2010 itself, after the Delhi HC judgement,

Secretary-General of the Supreme Court along with Central Public Information Officer
(CPIO) went on to file appeals against the Central Information Commission and High
Court orders. The matter, later on, was referred to the Constitutional Bench by the
Supreme Court. And, on November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court's final verdict came
upholding the Delhi HC judgement thereby stating that the Office of the Chief Justice of
India comes under the definition of ‘Public Authority’ and hence, it is bound by the Right
to Information Act.

● This landmark judgement given in Central Public Information Officer; Supreme Court

of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal1 is crucial to understand for it ended the constant
debate that revolved around the inclusion of Judiciary under the ambit of RTI. The court
pronounced that the need to have transparency did not undermine judicial independence
and stated that independence and accountability go hand in hand in the case of Judiciary.

� ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

● In this historic verdict, the 5-judge constitution Bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and NV

Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has held that the
office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information.
In the 250-pages long judgment, Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote the majority opinion for the
Bench and Justices NV Ramana and DY Chandrachud gave separate but concurring
opinion.

1Central Public Information Officer; Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine
SC 1459.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 10

● On reading the judgement closely we see that there is no specification provided whether

collegium resolutions can be disclosed or not. Though there are some key findings in the
judgement they are as follows—

a) The Supreme Court of India and office of CJI are not held to be separate, therefore
the office will be included in the Supreme Court in view of Article 124 of the
Constitution.

b) Disclosure of personal assets of judges will not lead to infringement of their right
to privacy

● We can draw these two points which are clearly given in the verdict. Justice Ramana

provided a few points before that needs to be considered before assessing the term ‘public
authorities’ given under article 8 of the Right to Information Act—

▪ Party to whom the information is disclosed

▪ Manner in which information is acquired

▪ Public and Private interests

▪ Nature and the content of information

A number of things had to be kept in mind before concluding if there was infringement of the
right to privacy of a person. Some of them listed by Justice Ramana was-

▪ Impact on private life

▪ Nature of information

▪ Consent of the person

▪ Intrusion’s nature and person

▪ Attributes of claimants such as being a public figure, a minor, etc. and their reputation.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 11

● To make sure the RTI act doesn’t become absolute and like a tool of surveillance on the

Supreme Court and its functions, the court in its verdict provided for certain checks—

a) The personal information of the judges will only be disclosed if it is for the
larger public interest.

The Court said that 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.

Some of the important aspects highlighted by the Court are as follows:

▪ Public interest has no relationship and is not connected with the number of

individuals adversely affected by the disclosure which may be small and

insignificant in comparison to the substantial number of individuals wanting
disclosure.

▪ Public interest is not immutable and even time-gap may make a significant

difference.

▪ The type and likelihood of harm to the public interest behind the exemption and

public interest in disclosure would matter. The delicate balance requires

identification of public interest behind each exemption and then cumulatively
weighing the public interest in accepting or maintaining the exemption(s) to
deny information in a particular case against the public interest in disclosure in
that particular case.

▪ ‘Motive’ and ‘purpose’ for making the request for information is irrelevant and

being extraneous cannot be a ground for refusing the information. However,

this is not to state that ‘motive’ and ‘purpose’ may not be relevant factor while
applying the public interest test in case of qualified exemptions governed by
the public interest test.

b) The public information officer (PIO) here will have discretionary powers
under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 12

Justice Khanna in his judgment observes that the Public Information Officer has
discretionary powers under section 8 of the RTI act. It was only stated that the
conclusion officer arrives on must be ‘fair and just’ except this there were no
specific guidelines given to exercise power.

Justice Chandrachud explained it by giving broad parameters he made it clear that

at first, the officer needs to determine if the information sought is personal or
violates the right to privacy. Second, was the officer needs to determine if the
disclosure of information is for public interests; third, was to determine
justifications for such interests. The fourth parameter was to make sure no right is
abridged more than required to fulfil the legitimate aim of the countervailing right.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 13

CONCLUSION

Through this judgement, we can conclude that Judicial organ of the ‘state’ eventually came
under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. RTI, as it is evident, performs
important functions in a democracy by enhancing citizen’s ability to participate in the
process.
When we could question the legislature and the executive for their actions and have a sort of
transparency in their functions by exercising our RTI, then why the judiciary should be
allowed the privilege. The landmark judgement rightly dissolves such immunity granted to
the judicial organ by answering all the relevant questions in detail. Though this judgment is
filled with some vagueness, in the near future it will help us to see if brings transparency in
the Indian judiciary and especially in Judicial Appointments made in higher judiciary.
IT/RTI LAW PAGE | 14

REFERENCES

� Central Public Information Officer; Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra

Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459.

� https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/11/13/breaking-office-of-cji-comes-under-the-

purview-of-rti-sc/.

� https://www.scobserver.in/cases/central-public-information-officer-supreme-court-

subash-chandra-agarwal-rti-and-judicial-independence-background/.

� https://lawcirca.com/cji-office-under-right-to-information-actrti/ .

� https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3673-rti-and-judiciary.html .