CJI’s Office Under RTI Act: SC Balances Transparency with Judicial Independence

Central Public Information Officer Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Supreme Court of India)

In a landmark ruling that strengthened India’s transparency regime, the Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal held that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a “public authority” within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The decision, delivered by a Constitution Bench of five judges, clarified that judicial independence and transparency are not antagonistic but complementary constitutional values.

The judgment arose out of three civil appeals (Nos. 10044/2010, 10045/2010, and 2683/2010), all concerning the scope of the RTI Act as applied to the Supreme Court and its administrative functioning.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a noted RTI activist, filed multiple applications before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court seeking information on matters of judicial administration:

1. Appointment of Judges: He sought correspondence and file notings relating to the appointment of three judges of the Supreme Court who were allegedly superseding senior judges.
2. Judicial Correspondence: He requested communication between the then Chief Justice and government officials concerning a Union Minister’s alleged attempt to influence a judicial decision.
3. Assets of Judges: He sought disclosure of asset declarations made by judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and whether such declarations had been filed with the Chief Justice as required under the 1997 resolution adopted by the judges.

The CPIO rejected these requests citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, claiming the information was held in a fiduciary capacity or related to personal information.

The Central Information Commission (CIC), however, directed the Supreme Court to disclose the information. On appeal, the Delhi High Court’s Full Bench upheld the CIC’s orders, holding that the CJI’s office is indeed a “public authority.”

Aggrieved by this, the Supreme Court’s CPIO approached the Supreme Court through three civil appeals—eventually decided by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the office of the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court is a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
2. Whether disclosure of information such as judges’ asset declarations or appointment-related correspondence violates judicial independence.
3. Whether such information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary relationship) or Section 8(1)(j) (personal information) of the RTI Act.
4. How to balance the right to information with the right to privacy and the independence of the judiciary.

Judgment and Key Findings

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous but nuanced judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna (for Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta) and concurring opinions by Justices N.V. Ramana and D.Y. Chandrachud, held as follows:

1. CJI’s Office Is a “Public Authority”

The Court affirmed that the Supreme Court, including the office of the Chief Justice, is established under the Constitution and therefore falls within Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CJI is not separate from the institution; hence, the office is subject to RTI obligations.

“The office of the Chief Justice of India is not a separate entity. It is part and parcel of the Supreme Court, which is a public authority.”

2. Transparency and Independence Are Complementary

Rejecting the argument that disclosure under RTI would undermine judicial independence, the Court held that transparency enhances public trust and thereby strengthens independence. Judicial independence is not immunity from accountability.

3. Asset Declarations Subject to Public Interest Test

While the Court recognized judges’ right to privacy, it held that declarations of assets made by judges are information held by the CJI in his official capacity. Disclosure of such declarations, subject to redaction of sensitive details, serves a legitimate public interest and does not breach privacy.

4. Fiduciary Relationship Does Not Apply

The Court clarified that judges do not stand in a fiduciary relationship with the CJI when submitting their asset declarations. Hence, the CPIO cannot refuse disclosure under Section 8(1)(e).

5. Personal Information and Public Interest Balancing

Information concerning third parties (like family members of judges) may be exempt under Section 8(1)(j), unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. The Court directed that in each case, the “proportionality test” must be applied — weighing privacy against public interest.

6. Collegium Correspondence and Judicial Appointments

The Court accepted that information related to judicial appointments is highly sensitive and disclosure must be considered on a case-to-case basis. Confidential deliberations, if disclosed indiscriminately, may affect candour and institutional functioning. However, the fact that such information exists and broad parameters of the decision-making process are not beyond scrutiny.

Legal Principles Clarified

Significance of the Judgment

This decision represents a historic milestone in India’s transparency jurisprudence:

• Judiciary Brought Within RTI Framework: The ruling affirms that the judiciary, including the Chief Justice’s office, is not above public scrutiny.
• Balanced Approach: It establishes that while transparency is the rule, confidentiality may be justified to protect legitimate institutional and privacy interests.
• Guiding Test of Proportionality: The Court adopted a “balancing of interests” approach — weighing the right to know against the right to privacy and institutional independence.
• Accountability and Public Confidence: The judgment reinforces public faith in the judiciary by ensuring it adheres to the same transparency standards that apply to other constitutional institutions.

Conclusion

The CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal ruling harmonises two pillars of the Constitution — judicial independence and the citizen’s right to information. By declaring the Chief Justice’s office a public authority while carving out privacy and confidentiality safeguards, the Supreme Court demonstrated that transparency strengthens, not weakens, the judiciary.

In the broader landscape of RTI jurisprudence, the judgment aligns with earlier pro-transparency decisions such as RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Union Public Service Commission v. Angesh Kumar, reaffirming that accountability is the foundation of public trust in all institutions — including the highest court itself.