Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to disclosure of information under Right to Information Act, 2005.    
• This judgment was delivered by a Five Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice NV Ramana, Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. 
• It is to be noted that two concurring opinions were rendered by Justice NV Ramana and Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud. 

Facts

• The case deals with how transparent the Supreme Court of India should be under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, particularly regarding: 
  • The collegium system for appointing judges 
  • Declaration of assets by judges  
• Three separate appeals were filed, all involving requests by Subhash Chandra Agarwal: 
  • First Appeal: About a Union Minister allegedly trying to influence a Madras High Court judge 
  • Second Appeal: Regarding the appointment of three Supreme Court judges (Justices Dattu, Ganguly, and Lodha) superseding other senior judges 
  • Third Appeal: About getting information on asset declarations made by judges 
• Initially, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court denied all these requests, claiming: 
  • The Registry didn't handle such information 
  • These matters weren't maintained by them 
  • The information wasn't under their control 
• The case went through multiple stages: 
  • First appeals were rejected 
  • The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled in favor of disclosure 
  • The Delhi High Court (both Single Judge and Full Bench) supported transparency 
• Key findings by the Delhi High Court included: 
  • The Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act 
  • Asset declarations by judges count as "information" under the RTI Act 
  • The Chief Justice doesn’t hold asset declarations in a “fiduciary capacity”. 
  • Personal information of judges can be accessed following proper procedures. 
• The matter was eventually referred to a larger Constitutional Bench to address the larger constitutional questions. 

Issue Involved

• Whether the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India are two separate public authorities? 
• Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of Judiciary? 
• Whether the information cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion of 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 taking the right decision? 
•  Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act? 

Observations 

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • The Court held that the terms ‘competent authority’ and ‘public authority’ have been defined specifically under Section 2 (e) and Section 2 (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). 
  • The Court held that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court are not two distinct and separate ‘public authorities’. 
  • The Supreme Court of India is a ‘public authority’ and the Chief Justice and the judges together form and constitute the ‘public authority’.  
  • The Court held that the interpretation of Section 2 (h) cannot be made in a manner that it is in derogation of the Constitution. 
• With Respect to Issue (ii), (iii) and (iv): 
  • In this way, the RTI Act complements both the right to information and the right to privacy and confidentiality. Further, it moderates and regulates the conflict between the two rights by applying the test of larger public interest or comparative examination of public interest in disclosure of information with possible harm and injury to the protected interests. 
  • The Court held that there is a need to harmonise right to privacy with right to information. 
  • The RTI Act captures this interplay of the competing rights under clause (j) to Section 8(1) and Section 11.  
  • The Court held that in the context of the RTI Act, suffice would be to say that the right to protect identity and anonymity would be identically subjected to the public interest test. 
  • The Court observed that professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. 
    • Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information.  
    • Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive. 
• Finally, the Court made the following conclusions with regard the questions in issue: 
  • The Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court and directed CPIO Supreme Court to furnish information on judges of Supreme Court who had declared their assets.
  • Further, the CPIO of Supreme Court was directed to re-examine the matters relating to third parties.

Conclusion

• This is a very important judgment that highlights the importance of balancing between the right to privacy and right to information under the Constitution. 
• The judgment discusses in detail the provisions of RTI Act their need and applicability.