2010 (1) TMI 1104 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Right to Information on Judges' Asset Declarations

The court affirmed the decision directing the CPIO to disclose information about asset declarations by Judges of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the ... Whether the respondent had any 'right to information' under Section 2(j) of the Act in respect of the information regarding making of declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to 1997 Resolution? Whether CJI held the 'information' in his 'fiduciary' capacity, within the meaning of the expression used in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act ? Whether the information about the declaration of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act ? Held that:- The respondent had right to information under Section 2(j) of the Act in respect of the information regarding making of declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to the 1997 Resolution. Section 8(e) does not cover asset declarations made by Judges of the Supreme Court and held by the CJI. The CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship. In the present case the particulars sought for by the respondent do not justify or warrant protection under Section 8(1)(j) inasmuch as the only information the applicant sought was whether 1997 Resolution was complied with. That kind of innocuous information does not warrant the protection granted by Section 8(1)(j). We concur with the view of the learned single Judge that the contents of asset declarations, pursuant to the 1997 Resolution, are entitled to be treated as personal information, and may be accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 8(1)(j); that they are not otherwise subject to disclosure. Therefore, as regards contents of the declarations, information applicants would have to, whenever they approach the authorities, under the Act satisfy them under Section 8(1)(j) that such disclosure is warranted in 'larger public interest'. Though the Act generally prohibits obtaining or using a report for commercial purposes, it contains an exemption for 'news and communication media' involved in 'dissemination to the general public'. Thus APB could not be refused access to the reports. Before the forms were released to the APB [APBnews.com], however, the Committee removed some personal information submitted by judges but not required by the Act, such as home addresses and names of spouses and dependants. Issues Involved:1. Right to Information2. Fiduciary Relationship3. Exemption under Section 8(1)(j)Detailed Analysis:Right to Information:The primary issue was whether the respondent had any 'right to information' under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the declarations of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to the 1997 Resolution. The court held that information is a currency required by every citizen to participate in governance, and the right to know is fundamental in a democratic state. The Act defines 'information' broadly, including any material in any form held by or under the control of any public authority. The court concluded that asset declarations by the Judges held by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) are 'information' under Section 2(f) and are accessible under Section 2(j). The court emphasized that the right to information emerges from constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(a), and the Act is an instrument to facilitate this right.Fiduciary Relationship:The second issue was whether the CJI held the information in a 'fiduciary' capacity, which would exempt it from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. The court defined a fiduciary relationship as one where confidence is reposed by one in another, leading to a conflict of interest and duty. The court held that the CJI cannot be a fiduciary vis-`a-vis the Judges of the Supreme Court as they hold independent office and there is no hierarchy in their judicial functions. The declarations are made to the CJI in the discharge of a constitutional obligation to maintain higher standards and probity of judicial life, not in a private relationship or as a trust. Therefore, the CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity.Exemption under Section 8(1)(j):The third issue was whether the information about the declaration of assets by the Judges is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which protects personal information from disclosure if it has no relationship to any public activity or interest or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. The court held that while personal information about public servants, including asset declarations, is protected, it can be disclosed if larger public interest justifies it. The court noted that the respondent did not seek the contents of the declarations but only whether such declarations were made, which does not warrant protection under Section 8(1)(j). The court concluded that the information sought does not justify or warrant protection as it is innocuous and does not invade privacy.International Trends:The court referred to international practices, noting that asset and income disclosure is considered effective in discouraging corruption and conflicts of interest. In the United States, federal judges are required to disclose personal and financial information annually under the Ethics in Government Act, 1978, with provisions for redaction to protect privacy and security. The court highlighted that transparency and accountability are essential for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.Conclusion:The court affirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge, directing the appellant CPIO to reveal the information sought by the respondent about the declaration of assets made by Judges of the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that democracy expects openness and that judicial accountability complements judicial independence.