CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA versus SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 1120 · Decided: 26-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1120 
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME 
COURT OF INDIA 
v. 
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 etc.) 
NOVEMBER 26, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
C 
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005: 
ss.6 and 8(1)(j) - Request to CPIO, Supreme Court of 
India to furnish complete filels (only as available in Supreme 
Court) inclusive copies of complete correspondence 
0 
exchanged between constitutional authorities concerned with 
file notings relating to appointments of certain Judges of 
Supreme Court and High Courts -
Request declined -
Ultimately, direction by CIC to CPIO, Supreme Court to 
furnish the information sought by respondent - Order of CIC 
challenged before Supreme Court - Held: The case raises 
E important questions of constitutional importance relating to 
the position of the Chief Justice of India under the Constitution 
and independence of Judiciary in the scheme of the 
Constitution on the one hand and, on the other, fundamental 
right to freedom of speech and expression, of which right to 
F information is an integral part - A substantial question of law 
as to the interpretation of the constitution is involved in the 
case which is required to be heard by a Constitution Bench -
Matter directed to be placed before Chief Justice of India for 
G 
constitution of a Bench of appropriate strength. 
Respondent no. 1 in C.A. No. 10044 of 2010 
requested the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to arrange 
to send him a copy of complete file/s (only as available 
in Supreme Court) inclusive of copies of complete 
H 
1120 
CEN. PUB. INFORMATION OFFICER, SCI v. SUBHASH 1121 
CHANDRA AGRAWAL 
correspondence exchanged between the constitutional · A 
authorities concerned with file notings relating to 
appointments of certain Judges of the Supreme Court 
and High Courts, as allegedly objected to by Prime 
Minister's Office also. He further requested the CPIO not 
to invoke s. 6 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The 
B · 
CPIO informed the respondent that the information 
sought by him was "neither maintained nor available in 
the Registry". The appeal of the respondent was 
dismissed. He preferred a further appeal before the CIC 
purported to be u/s 19 (3) ·of the Act. The CIC having set c 
aside the orders passed by the authorities and directed 
the CPIO, Supreme· Court to furnish the information 
sought by the respondent, the latter filed the appeal. 
It was mainly contended for the appellant that 
disclosure of the information sought for by the D 
respondent could not be furnished in public interest, i.e., 
to keep the appointment and transfer from "needless 
intrusions by strangers and busy bodies in the 
functioning of the judiciary". It was submitted by the . 
Attorney General that the information made available to 
E 
the Chief Justice of India in respect of appointment of 
Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court was 
held by him in trust and in fiduciary capacity. The 
submission ·received considerable support from various 
High Courts pursuant to the notices· issued by the 
F 
Supreme Court. 
Referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: 
G 
1.1 A substantial question of law as to the 
interpretation of the Constitution is· involved in the 
present case which is required to be heard by a 
Constitution B~nch. The case on hand raises important 
questions of constitutional importance relating to the 
H 
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A position of the Chief Justice of India under the 
Constitution of India and the independence of the 
Judiciary in the scheme of the Constitution on the one 
hand and, on the other, fundamental right to freedom of 
speech and expression. Right to information is an integral 
B part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and 
expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Right to 
Information Act merely recognizes the constitutional right 
of citizens to freedom of speech and expression. 
Independence of Judiciary forms part of basic structure 
c of the Constitution. The independence of Judiciary and 
the fundamental right to free speech and expression are 
of a great value and both of them are required to be 
balanced. [para 12) [1127-H; 1128-A-C] 
1.2 Following substantial questions of law as to the 
D interpretation of the Constitution arise for consideration: 
1. Whether the concept of independence of judiciary 
requires and demands the prohibition of f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.