Supreme Court Balances Right to Information and Judicial Independence in Landmark RTI Judgment

Constitution Bench rules that transparency in judicial appointments and asset declarations must be weighed against privacy and confidentiality, applying a public interest test under the RTI Act, 2005

In a landmark judgment delivered on November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court of India, in a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices N.V. Ramana, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna, pronounced a nuanced verdict on the scope of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in relation to the judiciary. The case arose from appeals filed by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India, against orders directing disclosure of sensitive information sought by Subhash Chandra Agarwal concerning judicial appointments, asset declarations of judges, and allegations of undue influence on judicial decisions.

The core issue before the Court was how to reconcile the constitutional right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially in the context of judicial independence — a component of the Constitution’s basic structure.

The Court held that the Supreme Court of India is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) forms an integral part of the Supreme Court, not a separate public authority. Thus, information held by the CJI or the Supreme Court registry is accessible under the Act, subject to the exemptions and procedures therein.

Regarding the asset declarations of Supreme Court judges, the Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision directing disclosure of whether the judges had complied with the 1997 resolution mandating asset declaration to the CJI. However, the contents of such declarations were held to be personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless the larger public interest justifies disclosure. The fiduciary relationship exemption under Section 8(1)(e) was held inapplicable because the CJI does not hold asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity vis-à-vis other judges.

On the question of disclosure of correspondence and file notings relating to appointments and alleged attempts to influence judicial decisions, the Court remanded the matter to the CPIO to follow the procedural safeguards under Section 11 of the RTI Act, mandating notice and opportunity to be heard to third parties whose confidential information is sought to be disclosed. The Court emphasized that the public interest test must be applied to balance transparency and judicial independence.

The Court extensively analyzed the definitions of “information,” “right to information,” “personal information,” and “public interest” under the RTI Act, referencing international jurisprudence and constitutional principles. It highlighted that the right to information is not absolute and must be harmonized with the right to privacy and confidentiality. The principle of proportionality is central to this balancing exercise.

The judgment recognized judicial independence as a multi-faceted constitutional value encompassing decisional and functional independence. It rejected the notion that judicial independence requires absolute secrecy in appointments or asset disclosures. Rather, it acknowledged that transparency and accountability are essential to maintaining public trust and reinforcing judicial independence.

The Court also underscored that exemption claims based on confidentiality or fiduciary relationship require rigorous application of the public interest test. It rejected “class immunity” for correspondence among constitutional functionaries related to judicial appointments, reiterating the importance of openness in democratic governance.

The Court directed the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, to provide asset declaration compliance information and to reconsider requests for appointment-related information after following the statutory procedures under the RTI Act, giving due consideration to the privacy and confidentiality objections of third parties.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, concurring, elaborated on the intricate balance between the right to privacy and the right to information, emphasizing that both are co-equal fundamental rights and must be balanced contextually.

This judgment clarifies the interplay between transparency, privacy, confidentiality, and judicial independence, setting important precedents for handling RTI requests involving sensitive judicial information. It calls for evolving norms in judicial appointments and disclosures consistent with constitutional values and public interest.

Statutory provisions

Right to Information Act, 2005 Sections 2(e), 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 3, 4, 6(2), 6(3), 7, 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), 9, 10, 11, 19, 22

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1621350