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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
