Case Brief Central Public Information Officer(CPIO), SC of India versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal

Sylvinn Simjo, Intern

Central Public Information Officer(CPIO), Supreme Court of India versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal,

Case Citation: (2020) 5 SCC 481

COURT: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D. Y. Chandrachud, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjiv Khanna, Deepak Gupta, NV Ramana

Date of Decision: 13 November, 2019

Facts of the case:

The current case revolves around three appeals that have arisen from separate orders by the courts, which denied Mr. Subhash of the information he requested under the RTI Act. The respondent, Mr. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, is an Indian businessman and a right to information activist. He filed applications with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to be informed of the personal assets of the sitting judges as well as communications pertaining to judicial appointments and a suspected sway over a judgement The petitions were refused, with the explanation that the sought material was either exempt or secret. Mr. Subhash had requested for the complete correspondence of the Chief Justice of India regarding a union minister who allegedly approached Justice R Raghupati, a sitting judge of the Madras High Court, with the intention to influence a judicial decision that was to be made by the judge. The CPIO dismissed his petition and the information, noting that the information requested by Subhash did not fall within the scope of all cases handled and dealt with by the Supreme Court of India Registry, and hence no information pertaining to it was kept or available with the registry.

Following this, Mr. Subhash approached the first appellate authority, who rejected the appeal on the grounds that whatever information that he had requested was not covered within the ambit of Sections 2(f) and (j) of the Right to Information, 2005 Act. Following this, Mr. Subhash approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) by way of a second appeal, who then directed the CPIO to provide the information sought by Mr. Subhash under the RTI Act. The CPIO was dissatisfied with this ruling. Therefore they appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, disputing the CIC's decision to require disclosure.

The second appeal by the CPIO was filed against another order of the CIC directing access to information to be granted, which included documents available with the Supreme Court about a discussion between the necessary constitutional authorities regarding the nomination of certain Supreme Court judges who would supersede other senior judges, To this, the CPIO had replied that the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts are made by the President of India as per the procedure prescribed by law and the matters relating thereto were not dealt with and handled by the Registry of the Supreme Court.

The third appeal included an RTI request for information on a declaration made by judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of the States detailing the assets held by them, their wives, or anybody dependent on them.

Issues:

1) Whether the concept of the independence of the judiciary requires the prohibition of furnishing the information sought?

2) Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of the judiciary?

3) 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 making the right decision?

4) Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act?"

Laws:

The laws and provisions applicable in this case are:

1. Article 124 of the Constitution of India

2. Article 136 of the Constitution of India

3. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act

4. Section 8(e) of the RTI Act

5. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act

6. Section 28 of the RTI Act

7. Section 2(2)(ii) of the RTI Act

8. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

Analysis:

The first issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the Supreme Court is within the scope of public power as defined by section 2(h) of the statute. The Supreme Court of India was formed under Article 124 of the Indian Constitution, and the Court determined that it is a "public authority" as defined under the RTI Act. To further elaborate on the designation of the Chief Justice of India as a competent authority, we must refer to Section 2(2)(ii) of the RTI Act. As a result, the Chief Justice of India has the authority to make regulations to carry out the RTI Act's requirements, which must be published in the Official Gazette (Section 28, RTI Act). The Supreme Court will also have to contain the Chief Justice's office and the justices, according to the Court. Subsequently, the Court opined that Chief Justice's or judges' offices are not distinct from the Supreme Court. In other terms, the Supreme Court, which is made up of the Chief Justice and other justices, is the "public authority."

The Court went on to define the terms "information" and "right to information" under the RTI Act, holding that "information" refers to any "material in any form" that is accessible by a public authority and stored by or under the control of a public authority." Having defined these two terms, the Court opined that the RTI Act establishes a practical and pragmatic regime to enable citizens to gain greater access to information held by public authorities while balancing various interests such as efficient governance, optimal use of limited fiscal operations, and the protection of sensitive information's confidentiality.

One of the qualified exemptions for disclosure of the information is if it is made in his fiduciary relationship.

The term Fiduciary relationship was described through the courtroom docket withinside the Aditya Bandopadhyay case where it was held that the expression fiduciary relationship, when utilized in its regular and well-identified sense, means to consult people appearing in a fiduciary capacity, and with regards to a selected beneficiary or beneficiaries who are predicted to be covered or benefited through the fiduciary's actions. The Supreme Court ruled that the Chief Justice's and judges' relationship is not typically that of a trustee and a beneficiary. However, this rule fails to be absolute since a fiduciary relationship may develop in specific situations and activities. Whether or whether such a link exists in a specific circumstance must be determined using the following criteria and parameters:

(1) no conflict rule

(2) no profit rule

(3) undivided loyalty rule

(4) duty of confidentiality

The Court then concluded that the relationship between the Chief Justice and judges is not generally that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary.

Following this, the Court considered the issue of privacy and confidentiality. Section 8(1)(j) prohibits the publication of personal information that has no connection to any public activity or interest and would result in an unjustified violation of the individual's privacy. Section 11 regulates the disclosure of personal information relating to or provided by a third party that has been considered confidential by the third party. These aren't absolute restrictions. Therefore they'll fall under the category of qualifying exemptions. These rules also help to balance the need for personal privacy, information secrecy, and good governance with one's access to information.

The Court interpreted Section 8(1) ((j) and stated that it would be an invasion of privacy only if the information that is disclosed is personal information and not public information. The Court held that information such as mental and physical status, marks obtained, medical records, treatments, etc., are all protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy and can only be accessed when the larger public interest warrants it.

The Court further read and interpreted section 11 with reference to the Commonwealth v. John Fairfax and Sons Ltd (1980) case emphasizing the importance of public interest when it comes to determining whether the Court's information should be made public. As a result, it was suggested that what should be disclosed would be determined by a comprehensive assessment into the public interest, that is, whether the right to access and the right to know exceeds the potential public interest in safeguarding privacy or the harm and injury to third parties where the information pertains to them or is secret in nature.

The Court then dwelt into what would categorize as public interest. To understand this, they referred to an article published in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal named the Freedom of Information and the Public Interest: the Commonwealth experience which found that there are several arguments in favor of transparency which includes points such as the openness in the expenditure of public funds, the accountability of officials, the performance by a public authority of its regulatory functions, public health and safety, and so on, while others weigh in against it with points such as the viability of decision-making processes or the likelihood of damage to security or international relations or integrity, and lastly the information which is irrelevant, which means information that might be embarrassing, misunderstood, or information that is very technical, etc. Public Information Officers must clearly express their reasons and indicate the public interest in every situation when making a judgement.

Lastly, the Court examined the importance of judicial independence, and the right to deny public access to information about the judges as that could bring about confidentiality issues, data protection issues and tarnish the reputation of the judges appointed.

The Court was of the opinion that giving an absolute answer to this dilemma is not possible and that the courts much evaluate the public interest in each and every case and weigh the interests of the public.

Conclusion:

In their verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court judges with regards to the order to publish information on the judge's assets as this would in no way affect the right to privacy of the judges. Furthermore, the fiduciary relationship that was claimed is inapplicable as there is no direct fiduciary relationship. Furthermore, it was held that such a release of the information would not affect the judge's confidentiality.

With regards to the other appeals, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal with an order to re-examine the case after following the procedure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act since the information affects third parties.