CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, versus SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 13-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 21 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
v.
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL
(Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010)
NOVEMBER 13, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, N.V. RAMANA,
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, DEEPAK GUPTA
AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Collegium system for
appointment and elevation of judges to the Supreme Court and the
High Courts; declaration of assets by judges, etc. – Information
in context of – The respondent filed three applications under the
RTI Act, 2005 seeking information regarding: 1) copies of the
correspondence exchanged between constitutional authorities
together with file notings, relating to the appointment of three
Judges of the Supreme Court, who had superseded seniority of
another three Judges by an application dated 23.01.2009; 2) a
copy of the resolution dated 07.05.1997 of the Judges of the
Supreme Court requiring every sitting Judge and all the future
judges upon assuming office to make a declaration of assets by
an application dated 10.11.2007 and 3) on the basis of a
newspaper report, the complete correspondence exchanged with
the Chief Justice of India in regards to a Union Minister having
allegedly approached a judge of the High court, through a lawyer
to influence a judicial decision by an application dated 06.07.2009
– In an application dated 06.07.2009, the information was denied
by the CPIO of the Supreme Court on the ground that the
information sought by the respondent was not handled and dealt
with by the Registry of the Supreme Court and neither maintained
nor available with Registry – However, the Central Information
Commission (CIC) directed disclosure of information and observed
that disclosure will not infringe upon the status of the Judges –
The information sought in application 23.01.2009 was again denied
by CPIO observing that the Supreme Court Registry did not deal
with the matters pertaining to appointment of the Judges of the
Supreme Court – However, the CIC directed the furnishing of
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 424
424
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
425
information – Insofar as application dated 10.11.2007 is
concerned, it was also dismissed by the CPIO and the CIC again
directed the CPIO of the Supreme Court to provide the information
asked by the respondent in his RTI application unless, the disclosure
of information was exempted by law – The appellant instituted writ
petition before the Delhi High Court and the same was dismissed
holding, inter alia, that the declaration of assets furnished by the
Judges of the Supreme Court to Chief Justice of India and its
contents constituted ‘information’, subject to the provisions of the
RTI Act – The Full Bench of the High Court upheld the decision
of the Single Judge of the High Court – Aggrieved by the decision
of the Full Bench of the High Court and the CIC in the RTI
applications, the CPIO, Supreme Court has preferred the appeals
before the Supreme Court against the order of the CIC in
applications dated 06.07.2009, 23.01.2009 and the decision of the
Full Bench of the High Court – Held [Per Sanjiv Khanna, J. (for
himself, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, and N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)]: The information sought
by the respondent in application dated 10.11.2007, regarding
declaration of the assets, the judgment of the Full Bench of the
High Court is upheld, which had upheld the order passed by the
CIC directing the CPIO, Supreme Court to furnish information on
the Judges of the Supreme Court who had declared their assets –
Such disclosure would not in any way, impinge upon the personal
information and right to privacy of the judges – The fiduciary
relationship rule in terms of cl(e) to s. 8(1) of the RTI Act is
inapplicable – It would not affect the right to confidentiality of
the Judges and their right to protect personal information and
privacy, which would be the case where the details and contents
of personal assets in the declaration are called for and sought in
which event the public interest test as applicable vide s. 8(1)(j) and
proviso to s.11(1) of the RTI Act would come into operation – As
far as other two RTI applications dated 06.07.2009 and 23.01.2009
are concerned, these application are remitted to the CPIO, Supreme
Court to re-examine the matter after following the procedure u/s.
11(1) of the RTI Act as information relates to third parties.
Right to Information Act, 2005 – s.2 cl(h) and sub-cl (ii) in
cl(e) to s.2 – Whether the 

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