The Right to Information Act, 2005, having its roots entrenched in Part III of the Constitution is a basic democratic tenet. Right to Information branches out of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court iterated that Article 19(1)(a) not only guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression, but also ensured the right of citizens to know and the right to procure information regarding matters of public concern. The purpose of the Act, as set out in its preamble is to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of Public Authorities, by giving to the citizens a means (by way of the statute) to procure information concerning the public, whilst upkeeping the democratic spirit/principles.
The recent Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal[2] on November 13, 2019, whereby the Office of the Chief Justice of India under the scrutiny/ambit of the RTI Act depicts a purposive interpretation rightly stretching the ambit of the RTI Act, in consonance with its objects and compliance with the principles of democracy.
The Facts of the case in a nutshell are:
The Respondent requested the CPIO for furnishing- a copy of the 1997 resolution of the Full Court of the Supreme Court and Information regarding declaration of assets filed by the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The first request was furnished whereas the second was not, the information being under the control of the registry of the Supreme Court. Upon receiving an appeal, the CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information asked by the appellant Subhash Chandra Agarwal in his RTI Application. The Hon’ble Single Judge in the Writ petition filed before him held the office of the CJI to be a public authority under the RTI Act and covered by its provisions. The Information related to the asset declaration is ‘information’, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, and is not covered by the exemptions under section 8 of the Act. Further, the LPA preferred by the Supreme Court of India was dismissed.
Finally, the matter was appealed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Appeal was dismissed, and the Delhi High Court judgment was upheld. Pertaining to the case at hand, it was held that the right to information under section 2(j) of the Act would be applicable for the information in question. Such disclosure is not exempt as per provisions of section 8 nor would it encroach upon the Right to Privacy of judges.
Furthermore, it becomes essentially important to analyze the legal concepts which form the basis/core/led to the aforementioned decision/adjudication. Certain provisions of RTI Act, including Sections 2(e), 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), which formed the crux of the legal debate centering the topic need to be checked [better word]. The court rightly held that the Supreme Court and the office of the Chief Justice are not separate entities, but interpreted it in light of Sections 2(e)(ii) and 2(h) of the RTI Act and Article 124 of the Constitution, holding Supreme Court to be a Public Authority whereas the Chief Justice is a competent Authority in case of the Supreme Court. Among exceptions, the interpretations of ‘fiduciary’ in Section 8(1)(e) and ‘privacy’ in Section 8(1)(j) were contested. Pertaining to Section 8(1)(e), the larger public interest has to be weighed and a responsibility is cast upon the person deemed to be the fiduciary that he avoids personal interest but acts in the benefit of the public. Pertaining to the application of Section 8(1)(j), the interplay between confidentiality/privacy and the Right to Information have to be carefully analyzed. The three important elements for breach of confidentiality are[3]:
a.) Information should be of Confidential Nature
b.) There must be an obligation of Confidentiality
c.) There must be unauthorized use of Information
In the present case, the application of the aforementioned criteria for breach of confidentiality can be quashed by virtue of affirmative interpretation pertaining to Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act i.e. the Information sought for in the present case (at dispute) qualifies as information and the RTI would apply, Supreme Court is a Public Authority.
Pertaining to ‘Privacy’ in Section 8 (1)(j), it is inevitable to refer to the K.S Puttaswamy[4] Judgment, whereby Privacy was held to be a Fundamental Right. But, it was mentioned:
“The RTI Act also defines the legitimate aim, that is a public interest in the dissemination of information which can be confidential or private (or held in a fiduciary relationship) when larger public interest or public interest in disclosure outweighs the protection or any possible harm or injury to the interest of the third party.”
The Analysis of the interpretation of ‘Public Interest’ provides a direction to the above-discussed legal jargon. Public interest has a direct connotation with Rights to Information and privacy, breach of confidentiality, and harm caused by such. To name the factors against disclosure would include: Damage to security, damage to the integrity of a nation and its public functioning, preservation of public interest of an individual’s privacy.[5]
A justified adjudication regarding the asset/information declaration of the Hon’ble Judges would have been to make available the Assets of the sitting Judges/ office bearers of Public Institutions for the duration post their elevation as judges, whilst the period of their service. The balance between transparency and privacy would be said to have been handled more carefully this way. The asset/information declaration is concerned in their capacities of serving the public, not in their capacities (before their elevation) as it would then have caused invasion to their privacy, resulting in a far-reaching impact in their career. Also, such disclosure of information of Judges become more necessary considering the undemocratic appointment of Judges. Public trust and confidence becomes important for the survival of the Judiciary, disclosure being an effective step towards the promotion of Accountability.
Picturising the larger context leads us to the debate/conflict between Judicial Independence and Accountability. The Privacy Rights, auxiliary to the former (Judicial Independence) clashes with Democracies’ values of Transparency, peoples’ Right to Know. But the common notion of placing Privacy along with the Independence of Judiciary is not a well-founded concept. Judiciary, being an organ of the Government cannot be placed outside the scope of public scrutiny. An observation by Justice Muralidhar expounds/speaks louder about the nature of Independence cast upon Judiciary: “Independence of Judiciary is not a Judge’s privilege, but his responsibility”. Judicial independence and accountability are a necessary concomitant of the process of governance and an isolated evaluation of the two is undesirable for the proper functioning of democracy.[6] The means should not be led to a separate evaluation of the two aforementioned principles of democracy but a conjunctive evaluation, to reconcile and harmoniously accommodate them, as was done in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case.
On a concluding note, I would like to iterate the correctness in adjudication/interpretation of the legal provisions leading to the stretching of the provisions of the RTI Act in the larger context of its preamble, Constitutional structure/provisions, and Democratic values. The decision marks a landmark decision, cementing public faith in Judiciary. I agree with the decision of the Court in the judgment of Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal, to bring the office of the CJI under the reaches of the RTI Act and disclosure of the information sought by the Respondent, the information concerned is during the tenure of service, the legal analysis, arguments and analysis of which are discussed in the above sections/paras.
References:
[1] State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 865.
[2] Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1459.
[3] Coco v. AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd, (1969) RPC 41.
[4] Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1350.
[5] Freedom of Information and the public Interest: the Commonwealth Experience, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 51.
[6] Shayonee Dasgupta & Sakshi Agarwal, Judicial Accountability and Independence: Exploring the limits of Judicial power, (2009) 2 NUJS L Rev 779.
0 Comments