Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs Supreme Court Of India

1. Case Title & Citation

Full name: Central Public Information Office, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)

Official Citation: (2020) 5 SSC 481

2. Court Name & Bench

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: The following are the five judges of the bench:

• Justice N.V. Ramana
• Justice Ranjan Gogoi
• Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
• Justice Deepak Gupta
• Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Bench: Constitutional Bench

3. Date of Judgement

13th November 2019

4. Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India. The CPIO appealed the Delhi High Court’s verdict on behalf of the Supreme Court.
• Respondent: Subhash Chandra Agarwal, who is a prominent RTI activist, was also the original applicant who was seeking information from the Supreme Court of India.

5. Facts of the Case

The case had its origin in a batch of RTI applications filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal during the year 2007. He had sought information regarding several aspects of the Supreme Court’s functioning. The detailed applications, which culminated in this case, were:

• Information on the assets of the judges of the Supreme Court of India.
• Contents of a letter exchanged between the Chief Justice of India and a judge from one High Court in respect of a certain case.
• Details of judges appointed to the Supreme Court and an individual High Court.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the court refused to entertain these applications, stating that the information sought was not available with him in his official capacity as a public authority, and it was confidential. Agarwal challenged this denial in the Central Information Commission (CIC), which held that the CPIO had not followed the prescribed procedure.

The order of CIC was challenged by the Supreme Court before the Delhi High Court, through its Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO). The single bench as well the full bench of high court had upheld CIC’s order declaring that office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) comes within the ambit “public authority” under RTI act so that it can be subjected to transparency law. The Supreme Court then entertained an appeal of the High Court decision and set up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the matter.

6. Issues Raised

Primary Legal Questions before the Constitutional Bench:

• Whether the Office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the definition of “public authority” in terms of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
• If the declaration of assets by Supreme Court judges to the Chief Justice of India is information that should be revealed under the RTI Act.
• Whether access to information about judicial appointments and administrative decisions of the judiciary should be prioritised or given preference when weighed against the right to privacy and independence of judges, which is an extension of judicial independence.

7. Arguments of the Parties

Arguments put forth by the Petitioner (CPIO, SC of India):

• Independence of judiciary: The CPIO had argued that bringing the CJI’s office under RTI would have an adverse effect on the independence of the judiciary, one of the basic structures of the Constitution. The judiciary is supposed to be one pillar of India’s democracy, and undermining its independence could cause serious trouble. The CPIO expressed apprehension that a large number of RTI applications would lead to harassment of judges and encroach on the internal administration of the Judiciary.
• Fiduciary relation, Trust and Confidence: It was put forth that the assets that the judges had declared to the CJI were held as fiduciaries and in trust and confidence. They said releasing this information would expose judges to undue influence.
• Immunity under Section 8(1)(j): The Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) invoked the immunity granted to personal information which does not have any relation to the public activity or public interest of a person, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of his/her privacy, under Section 8(1)(j), Right To Information (RTI) Act: The information of the assets and the personal details of judges fall under such exemption, CPIO argued.
• Privacy: The CPIO’s lawyer emphasised that the right to privacy as declared by the Supreme Court in S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India^[1], is a fundamental right. They argued that releasing the judges’ wealth might be an “unwanted invasion of privacy.”

Arguments of the Respondent (Subhash Chandra Agarwal):

• Transparency & Accountability: The arguments of Agarwal included that judicial independence is not grounds for secrecy. And as a public institution, it is held to account by the public. Openness is essential to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
• Public Authority: Petitioners had claimed that the office of CJI comes within the definition of a “public authority” and hence is liable to answer questions under the RTI Act, as it does not fall under any exemption. The argument here was that the CJI is a constitutional office and not an individual, which, because it is part of the Supreme Court, is also a public authority.
• No contradiction: The respondent’s counsel argued that there is no necessary conflict between judicial independence and transparency. On the contrary, transparency would go a long way in making the Supreme Court independent by creating good public perception and trustworthiness.
• Balancing Test: They argued for a balancing test, which pits the right to privacy against the public’s right to know. The public’s right to know the assets and employment of judges, who wield significant power, outweighs privacy concerns.

8. Judgment / Final Decision

The Supreme Court, in a ratio of 3:2, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, the CPIO appeal was rejected.

The Office of CJI is a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005: Court. Hence CPIO of the Supreme Court is under a legal obligation to give information on this application filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal.

But the Court did stress an important exception: “disclosure shall be subject to the balancing exercise,” in which consideration must be given to public interest and the need to protect judicial independence and judges’ privacy.

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The rationale of the majority opinion, authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna (for himself and CJI Ranjan Gogoi) and a concurring separate opinion by Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice R. Banumathi was as follows:

• Definition of “Public Authority”: The Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’. The court ruled that the SC is considered a “public authority” as defined by Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. “The Chief Justice of India is part and parcel of the Supreme Court. He/She and the Office of CJI are also a Public Authority. The Court held, in this author’s opinion, rightly so, that the role of a CJI is not that of a master of the roster but also the head of a institution.
• Balancing Act: The Court balanced competing interests of transparency and judicial independence. Though the privacy of a Judge is part of his human rights and fundamental rights, the public’s right to know about the functioning of the Judiciary is also imperative for democracy. The Court has determined that the public interest is to be compared with the potential injurious consequences of disclosure.
• Fiduciary duty: The judges have denied before the Court that CJI holds in a fiduciary capacity the asset declarations of the judges. It went on to say that it is recognized only when one holds property in trust for another. Here, the CJI collects official declarations of assets as head of the judiciary and not as a trustee.
• Proportionality Test: The Court applied the use of the proportionality test for balancing the right to privacy and the public good as applied in the Puttaswamy To be sure, the Court added that information about the assets of judges can indeed be disclosed if it pursues a legitimate purpose and is proportionate to the objective.
• Sec 8(1)(j) and Privacy: The Court held that, despite the personal information being protected under section 8(1)(j), it must be read with a proviso which says, “the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.” the Court laid stress upon the fact, that assets and public obligations of a judge were matters of public interest and not to be viewed as strictly private.
• No Risk to Impartiality: The majority opinion rejected the argument that transparency would lead to a loss of judicial impartiality. Rather, it is a mechanism for strengthening it. A transparent legal system is less vulnerable to corruption because justice is a known commodity.

The dissenting judgment of Justice Chandrachud focused on the operational implications arising from the judgment. He apprehended that the RTI Act could be misused to harass judges and stressed for a mechanism of disclosure to exist in reality within the judiciary. Nonetheless, the majority opinion prevailed.

10. Conclusion / Observations

The Subhash Chandra Agarwal Judgement is a significant judgement in India which has helped to robust RTI Act. It settled the fact that judiciary is not above the law and principles of transparency and accountability apply to it also. This verdict was a landmark decision in holding the courts accountable for their actions. Also, it made it absolutely clear that in a democracy, no institution is above the law and everyone is bound by it.

This case reinforced the proposition that judicial independence, which is a bedrock principle of the Constitution, is not an immutable idea; it has to be counterbalanced with other key principles of the Constitution, including transparency and the people’s right to know. The emphasis of the judgment on balancing of rights and using proportionality as a test, is a welcome development in Indian law. This case will no doubt set an important precedent for future cases against transparency and the functioning of constitutional institutions.

Reference(S): / Bibliography:

• B&B Associates LLP, ‘Case Summary: CPIO V/s Subhash Chandra Agarwal’ (2020) (BNB Legal)
• Drishti Judiciary. ‘Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)’. (Drishti Judiciary)
• Global Freedom of Expression. ‘Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal’. (Global Freedom)
• Indian Kanoon. Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481. (Indian Kanoon)
• Supreme Court Observer. ‘RTI and Judicial Independence: Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal’. (SCO Observer)

^[1] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (IndianKanoon)