Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
- Bhumitra Dubey
- September 8, 2020
Content :
The present case involves three appeals arose from three separate applications moved by Indian Businessman named Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Respondent), before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India. In the first RTI application the respondent based on a newspaper report, asked to furnish a copy of the complete correspondence between Chief Justice of India and Mr. Justice R. Reghupati. According to The Times of India in that report, Union Minister had influenced the decisions of Mr. Justice R. Reghupathi of the High Court of Madras. In the second RTI application, the respondent asked to furnish a copy of documents relating to the appointment of Supreme Court judges i.e. Mr Justice H.L. Dattu, Mr Justice A.K. Ganguly and Mr Justice R.M. Lodha in accordance with the concerned constitutional authorities. In these two applications, the CPIO Supreme Court of India had denied the information on the ground that the information sought was not dealt with or available with the Registry of the Supreme Court of India. Being aggrieved the respondent filed the appeal which came to be dismissed by the first appellate authority. The respondent further preferred a second appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC allowed this appeal and directed the disclosure of information observing that disclosure would not infringe upon the constitutional status of the judges. Aggrieved, CPIO preferred these appeals to the Supreme Court.
The third RTI application dealt with the information concerning the declaration of assets made by the judges of the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice of India. This application was also dismissed by the CPIO on the ground that it was not held by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India. On further appeal, the appellate authority directing the CPIO for following the procedure under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and to inform the Respondent about the authority holding such information. The officer held that filing of the application to CPIO of the Supreme Court was against the Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and supervise that the same should be filed to the CPIO of the High Courts. Thereupon, the Respondent had directly preferred an appeal before the CIC which allowed the appeal, directing the CPIO to provide the information. Then CPIO filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi HC that was in the favour of the Respondent. The court held that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls under the term “public authority” defined in the RTI Act and allowed for the access to information on the declaration made by the judges to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices in the States regarding the assets held by them, their spouses or any person dependent of them. Then the CPIO further appeal the matter to the Full Bench which again dismissed the appeal. The Full Bench was agreed with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. Aggrieved, CPIO, again filed this appeal in the Supreme Court of India. By this context, all the three appeals were tagged and the matter goes to the larger Bench.
