Supreme Court Clarifies Transparency in Judicial Appointments and Asset Declarations (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 123

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, N.V. Ramana, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J, Deepak Gupta, J, Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Majority Opinion by Sanjiv Khanna, J; Concurring Opinion by N.V. Ramana, J; Concurring Opinion by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J)

Can the judiciary be both independent and transparent? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this question in a landmark judgment concerning the disclosure of information related to judicial appointments and asset declarations. This case delves into the delicate balance between the public’s right to know and the judiciary’s need for independence and privacy. The judgment clarifies the scope of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the context of the judiciary’s functioning.

Case Background

The case originated from three separate applications filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information from the Supreme Court of India. These applications were related to:

• Correspondence regarding an alleged attempt by a Union Minister to influence a judge of the Madras High Court.
• File notings concerning the appointment of Justices H.L. Dattu, A.K. Ganguly, and R.M. Lodha, superseding other judges.
• Declarations of assets made by judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court initially denied these requests, leading to appeals before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and subsequently, the Delhi High Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following:

• Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which defines “information.” “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
• Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which defines “public authority.” “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted — (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any — (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
• Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which defines “right to information.” “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to — (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
• Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which provides exemption from disclosure for information held in a fiduciary relationship. (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
• Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which provides exemption from disclosure for personal information. (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
• Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which deals with third-party information. (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to privacy.

Arguments

Appellants (Supreme Court) argued that:

• Disclosure of the information would impede the independence of judges.
• The information sought is exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act, as it relates to personal information and fiduciary relationships.
• The information on assets is voluntarily declared by judges to the Chief Justice of India in his fiduciary capacity.
• Consultations and correspondence between the office of the Chief Justice of India and other constitutional functionaries are made on the basis of trust and confidence.

Respondent (Subhash Chandra Agarwal) argued that:

• Disclosure of the information would not undermine the independence of the judiciary.
• Openness and transparency in functioning would better secure the independence of the judiciary.
• Citizens have a legitimate and constitutional right to seek information about attempts to influence the judiciary.
• No fiduciary relationship exists between the Chief Justice and the judges or among the constitutional functionaries.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the concept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought? Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of the Judiciary?
2. Whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision?
3. Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on S.P. Gupta v. Union of India* to emphasize the importance of disclosure in a democratic society but distinguished it from the present case. The Court followed Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay* and Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry* to define the scope of “fiduciary relationship.” The Court also relied on State of U.P. v. Raj Narain* and K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others* to highlight the importance of transparency and the right to privacy. The Court also considered various authorities from other jurisdictions to understand the scope of privacy and confidentiality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court emphasized the need to balance the right to information with the right to privacy and the independence of the judiciary. The Court recognized that both transparency and confidentiality are important for the effective functioning of the judiciary. The Court also underscored that a fiduciary relationship does not exist between the Chief Justice of India and other judges. The Court also emphasized that the public interest in disclosure must be balanced against the harm to the protected interests. The Court also noted that the right to information is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the information was held in a fiduciary capacity. The Court also rejected the idea that the independence of the judiciary requires complete secrecy. The Court emphasized that transparency and accountability are important for the effective functioning of the judiciary. The Court also noted that the right to information is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the issues, considering various precedents, and interpreting the relevant provisions of the RTI Act and the Constitution. The Court also considered the importance of judicial independence, the right to privacy, and the need for transparency in the functioning of the judiciary.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that the judiciary is a public authority under the RTI Act.
• The Chief Justice of India does not hold asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity.
• Personal information of judges can be disclosed if a larger public interest is demonstrated.
• Transparency and accountability are essential for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
• The procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act must be followed when third-party information is involved.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the CPIO of the Supreme Court to re-examine the matter after following the procedure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, as the information relates to third parties. The concerned third parties are required to be issued notice and heard before a final order is passed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the judiciary is not exempt from the purview of the RTI Act, and that the right to information must be balanced with the right to privacy and judicial independence. The judgment clarifies the scope of the RTI Act in the context of the judiciary’s functioning and provides guidelines for balancing competing interests. The judgment also clarifies that the concept of fiduciary relationship is not applicable to the relationship between judges and the Chief Justice of India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the judiciary while also recognizing the need to protect the privacy of judges. The Court clarified that the judiciary is a public authority under the RTI Act and that information relating to judicial appointments and asset declarations can be disclosed if a larger public interest is demonstrated. The Court also emphasized that the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act must be followed when third-party information is involved. This judgment is a significant step towards ensuring a more transparent and accountable judiciary in India.

Category

• Constitutional Law
  • Right to Information
  • Article 19(1)(a)
  • Article 21
  • Judicial Independence
• Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Section 2(f)
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 2(j)
  • Section 8(1)(e)
  • Section 8(1)(j)
  • Section 11

FAQ

Q: Is the judiciary subject to the Right to Information Act?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that the judiciary is a public authority under the RTI Act.

Q: Can the asset declarations of judges be accessed under the RTI Act?
A: Yes, but only if a larger public interest is demonstrated, and the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act is followed.

Q: What is a fiduciary relationship in the context of the RTI Act?
A: A fiduciary relationship is one where one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of another. The Court held that the Chief Justice of India does not hold asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity.

Q: What is “personal information” under the RTI Act?
A: Personal information is information that relates to an individual and has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Q: What does “public interest” mean in this context?
A: Public interest refers to the general welfare of the public, including transparency, accountability, and the right to know. It does not mean what the public may find interesting.

Q: What is the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act?
A: Section 11 provides that when information relating to a third party is sought, the third party must be given a notice and opportunity to be heard before the information is disclosed.

Q: Does this ruling mean all information about judges is now public?
A: No. The ruling balances the right to information with the right to privacy. Personal information is protected unless a larger public interest justifies its disclosure, and the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act must be followed.