2019 (11) TMI 895 - SC - Indian Laws

Office of the CJI is part of a single public authority; RTI disclosures subject to Sections 8-11 and balancing

SC held the Supreme Court is a single public authority including the office of the CJI, and the CJI's office is not a separate public authority. The Court ... Public authority - held by or under the control of a public authority - fiduciary relationship - personal information and right to privacy - larger public interest test - Section 11(1) notice and third party procedure - severability under Section 10 - balancing of transparency and judicial independencePublic authority - held by or under the control of a public authority - Whether the office of the Chief Justice of India is a separate public authority distinct from the Supreme Court for the purposes of the RTI Act and whether information held with the Chief Justice is information held by the Supreme Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the Supreme Court is a 'public authority' under the RTI Act and that the Chief Justice and the other judges together constitute the Supreme Court as that institutional public authority; the office of the Chief Justice is not a separate public authority distinct from the Supreme Court. The definition of 'information' and the concept of information 'held by or under the control of a public authority' require an appropriate connection between the authority and the information; information received, used or consciously retained by the public authority in the exercise of its official functions falls within the scope of the Act. Consequently, information in the custody of the Chief Justice in his official capacity falls within the scope of information held by the Supreme Court and is amenable to the RTI Act framework, including the applicability of Sections 8-11 where relevant.The Chief Justice's office is not a separate public authority; information held with the Chief Justice in his official capacity is information held by the Supreme Court and falls within the RTI Act.Fiduciary relationship - Section 8(1)(e) - Whether declarations of assets made by judges to the Chief Justice are held by the Chief Justice in a fiduciary capacity so as to be exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - Applying the tests for a fiduciary relationship (trust, vulnerability, discretionary power and expectation that the fiduciary act in the beneficiary's best interests), the Court concluded that the Chief Justice does not hold other judges' asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity. The declarations were made pursuant to the 1997 resolution in the exercise of official functions and not in a relationship of personal vulnerability or dependency of judges on the Chief Justice; therefore Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary exemption) is inapplicable to those declarations.The fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e) does not apply to asset declarations made by judges to the Chief Justice.Personal information and right to privacy - Section 8(1)(j) - larger public interest test - Section 11(1) third party procedure - severability under Section 10 - How the RTI Act's privacy and confidentiality exemptions apply to (a) information whether judges have filed asset declarations, and (b) the contents of those declarations and other third party/collegium material. - HELD THAT: - The Court explained that (i) 'personal information' and 'unwarranted invasion of privacy' under Section 8(1)(j) engage constitutional privacy values and must be balanced with the public interest; (ii) Section 11(1) procedure (notice to third parties and opportunity to be heard) applies where information 'relates to' or 'has been supplied by' a third party and has been treated as confidential; (iii) severability under Section 10 requires disclosure of non exempt parts where reasonably practicable; and (iv) the public interest inquiry is contextual and demands proportionality between the public interest in disclosure and the privacy/confidentiality harms. Applying these principles, the Court upheld disclosure (and dismissed the appeal) in respect of whether judges of the Supreme Court had declared their assets pursuant to the 1997 resolution (such disclosure would not impinge on personal privacy), but clarified that the contents of declarations and other personal data remain subject to Section 8(1)(j)/Section 11 balancing and may be disclosed only if the larger public interest justifies it.Disclosure that judges have filed asset declarations as required by the 1997 resolution is permitted; contents of declarations and personal/confidential third party material are subject to Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11(1) balancing and severability, and may be disclosed only if larger public interest outweighs privacy/confidentiality.Section 11(1) notice and third party procedure - balancing of transparency and judicial independence - What is the appropriate procedure and standard when RTI requests seek collegium correspondence/file notings or other material relating to third parties and judicial selection, and what outcome follows in the present appeals concerning such material. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that information relating to collegium deliberations and file notings that 'relates to' or was 'supplied by' third parties falls within Section 11(1) and therefore the CPIO must issue notice to concerned third parties and consider their representations; the proviso to Section 11(1) requires disclosure when the public interest in disclosure outweighs any possible harm to the third party. The Court emphasised that judicial independence is an important public interest factor to be weighed in the balancing exercise but does not automatically preclude disclosure; transparency and independence must be balanced case by case using proportionality. Concluding on the appeals: Civil Appeal No. 2683/2010 (assets existence issue) was dismissed (disclosure upheld); Civil Appeals Nos. 10044/2010 and 10045/2010 (collegium/correspondence) were partly allowed in that they were remitted to the CPIO, Supreme Court, to re examine after following the Section 11(1) procedure and applying the principles set out in the judgment. The CPIO must notify and hear third parties and then decide, applying severability and the larger public interest test.Collegium and other third party material must be re examined by the CPIO after compliance with Section 11(1) notice/hearing; civil appeals concerning those materials are remitted for fresh decision under the statutory balancing framework; independence of judiciary is a weighty public interest factor but not an absolute bar to disclosure.Final Conclusion: The Constitution Bench held that the office of the Chief Justice is not a separate public authority from the Supreme Court and information held by the Chief Justice in his official capacity is information of the Supreme Court under the RTI Act; the fiduciary exemption does not apply to judges' asset declarations; disclosure that judges have filed declarations pursuant to the 1997 resolution is permitted, but the contents of declarations and collegium/third party materials are subject to the statutory privacy/confidentiality tests (Sections 8(1)(j), 10 and 11(1)) and must be decided by applying the larger public interest balancing and Section 11(1) notice/hearing procedure. Civil Appeal No. 2683/2010 is dismissed (disclosure upheld as to whether declarations were made); Civil Appeals Nos. 10044/2010 and 10045/2010 are remitted to the CPIO for fresh decisions after complying with Section 11(1). Issues Involved:1. Transparency in the appointment and elevation of judges.2. Declaration of assets by judges.3. Disclosure of correspondence related to judicial decisions.4. Right to Information (RTI) vs. Right to Privacy.5. Fiduciary relationship and confidentiality.6. Public interest in disclosure.7. Judicial independence and accountability.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Transparency in the Appointment and Elevation of Judges:The judgment addresses the appeals concerning the disclosure of correspondence and file notings related to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. The court held that such information does not inherently fall under a protected class of documents and must be disclosed unless it is shown that disclosure would harm public interest more than non-disclosure. The court emphasized that transparency in judicial appointments is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.2. Declaration of Assets by Judges:The court upheld the CIC's directive for the disclosure of information on whether judges of the Supreme Court have declared their assets. It was clarified that while the contents of the asset declarations are 'personal information' and may be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the fact of whether such declarations have been made is not personal information and must be disclosed.3. Disclosure of Correspondence Related to Judicial Decisions:The court examined the appeal concerning the disclosure of correspondence related to a Union Minister allegedly influencing a judge of the Madras High Court. The court directed the CPIO to re-examine the matter, following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which involves notifying third parties and considering their objections before deciding on disclosure.4. Right to Information (RTI) vs. Right to Privacy:The judgment extensively discusses the balance between the right to information and the right to privacy. It was held that while the RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability, it also recognizes the need to protect personal information and privacy. The court emphasized that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against privacy rights, with the larger public interest being a determining factor.5. Fiduciary Relationship and Confidentiality:The court rejected the argument that the Chief Justice of India holds asset declarations of judges in a fiduciary capacity. It was held that the Chief Justice does not act for the benefit of individual judges but in an official capacity, and therefore, the information is not exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.6. Public Interest in Disclosure:The court elaborated on the concept of public interest, stating that it is not limited to democratic accountability but includes promoting public debate, intellectual and educational purposes, and artistic expression. The court provided guidelines for Information Officers to balance public interest against privacy interests, emphasizing that the principle of proportionality must be applied to ensure that no right is abridged more than necessary.7. Judicial Independence and Accountability:The judgment underscores that judicial independence is not compromised by transparency and accountability. The court highlighted that transparency in judicial appointments and the disclosure of information related to the judiciary are essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring that the judiciary remains free from undue influence and bias.Conclusion:The court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, upholding the Delhi High Court's judgment directing the disclosure of whether judges have declared their assets. Civil Appeals Nos. 10044 and 10045 of 2010 were remanded to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, for re-examination following the principles set out in the judgment. The court emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in the judiciary while balancing these with the right to privacy and confidentiality where applicable.