Corruption Complaints Against Judges Fall Within Public Interest, Not 'Personal Information' Under RTI Act: Journalist To Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court was told today that information regarding complaints alleging corruption and misconduct against a judge cannot be exempted from disclosure citing “personal information” under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The submission was made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan who was appearing before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in a plea filed by journalist and RTI activist Saurav Das.

Das has sought RTI information on whether any complaints of corruption or improper conduct have been received by Supreme Court Collegium against former Madras High Court judge Justice T Raja.

“It can be personal information if it has no connection with public activity or public interest. If there is a complaint regarding corruption or misconduct against a judge, it has bearing on public activity and public interest. It cannot be denied on the ground of personal information,” Bhushan said.

He added: “They (Supreme Court Administration) have given information to the Government who furnished that to the Parliament. There was question and answer in the Parliament. When they say that information is not maintained in the manner in which you (Das) has sought… they say though we maintain information about total complaints, we don't maintain information qua particular judge….They can allow us to inspect (complaints) because inspection is also a right under the RTI Act.”

Insisting on inspection of the complaints, Bhushan referred to Section 4(1) of the RTI Act which mandates that every public authority must maintain, index, and computerize records to facilitate information access. He said that under the provision, there are two obligations: one, to maintain the record in the manner in which it facilitates RTI Act and two, to put it on the website.

“Information should have been put on the website. Lets assume they say we cannot do so… frivolous complaints I agree can be discarded but if they are maintaining record and giving it to the Parliament then they should maintain records regarding which complaints they acted and which they did not act, whether action was taken or not,” he said.

“If they felt this is going to divert the disproportionate amount of our resources to dig out information from 8,000 complaints, they should allow us to inspect,” Bhushan added.

“What is the problem in their cataloging it judge by judge or allowing us to inspect it? Either they provide us information or inspect these complaints where we will be able to see,” Bhushan said.

For context, on the last date of hearing, the counsel for SC administration had submitted that it maintained no information on any complaints received by it or the Chief Justice of India alleging corruption or improper conduct against Justice Raja.

Taking a similar stand today, the counsel said: “It is complete world apart what we have given to the Parliament and what they are seeking.”

The counsel read the reply of the Top Court administration which said the following : that the entire tenure of Justice Raja was more than 14 years as Madras High Court judge, the way by which a complaint can be received in the SC and that the communications addressed to SC judges are not open by officials of Registry and any answer in negative or positive cannot be given on corruption allegations or misconduct, including specific dates.

The response placed reliance on Section 7(9) of the RTI Act which mandates that information should generally be provided in the form requested but allows public authorities to refuse the request if supplying it would disproportionately divert resources or damage records.

The counsel said that the information furnished in the Parliament is regarding the number of complaints received against all sitting judges in the last 10 years.

She said that the request of inspecting the complaints was only made orally and is not mentioned in the RTI application, thereby falling outside the scope of the writ petition.

“He (Das) is trying to project a different story…. Information sought judge specific is not kept, specifically about misconduct or corruption, we don't maintain or keep any record,” the counsel said.

“Judges specific information is not to be provided under RTI Act. There is a ruling of 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court which says not to do so. Information about complaints, even if it was possible to give, we are not obliged to provide to them. He has no right to ask for this. He is neither the complainant nor the person complained of,” she added.

Further, the counsel said that inputs received on complaints are quite different from the decision itself and that there are various documents received in support of the complaints, which are not in public domain.

“Complaints on alleged misconduct or corruption is relating to personal information. We don't maintain it in this format- judge specific,” the counsel said.

“If the office of CJI receives a complaint and the CJI decides to act, then that becomes part of the file and that inquiry report is confidential. But he (Das) has gone one step before that. He wants all complaints, even those which did not get attention of the Chief Justice,” she added.

On this, Bhushan said that if there is no transparency regarding corruption of judges, it further fuels suspicion, while referring to the recent example of NCERT chapter controversy on corruption in judiciary.

After hearing the parties, the Court asked both the sides to submit recommendations on a mechanism to deal with similar issues, keeping in view the objection taken by the Top Court administration  

The matter is now listed for hearing next on May 07.

Das was denied the information by CPIO on May 17, 2023, by holding that, "The information is not maintained in the manner as sought for. " The reasoning of CPIO was affirmed by the First Appellate Authority.

Thereafter, Das filed appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) which remandedthe matter back to CPIO. The CPIO had once again refused to give information sought by Das on the same ground that the information was not maintained in the format sought by him.

Das has challenged the CIC order and has sought a direction on CPIO to provide the information sought by him in the format available with the CPIO, or in the alternative to permit him to inspect the primary documents.

The plea submits that whether or not any complaint has been received by the Supreme Court of India against a judge is a 'yes' or 'no' question not requiring maintenance or disclosure of such information in any particular format and Das has not sought such information in any particular format.

It adds that there is overwhelming public interest in ensuring accountability of the judiciary and the public has every right to to know if any complaint against a judge has been made to the Supreme Court of India and on what date and what action has been taken thereupon.

“Transparency and accountability in the functioning of judiciary are sine qua non for the healthy functioning of our democracy. The Respondent failed to consider that the information sought in point no. 3 cannot be denied to the parliament and State Legislature, and the same information cannot be denied to the public, it concerns the broader public interest in Judicial Transparency and Judicial Accountability,” the plea states.

On April 25, 2023, Das filed an RTI application before the PIO of the Supreme Court seeking the following information :

With regards to Acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court T. Raja, please furnish

1. Whether any complaints, whether through letter representation or otherwise, about either allegations of corruption and/or any improper conduct has been received by the Chief Justice of India, collegium, and/or the Supreme Court of India till date for anytime of Mr. Raja's tenure.

2. If so, the total number of such complaints received till date along with the date.

3. The action taken on such complaints or letter representations.

On May 17, 2023, the Additional Registrar, the PIO of the Supreme Court, responded by saying "the information is not maintained in the manner as sought for.”

The appeal filed against the PIO's response was rejected by the First Appellate Authority (Registrar of the Supreme Court) on June 22, 2023. Following that, the second appeal was filed before the CIC on July 4, 2023.

Title: SAURAVDAS v. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA