No Judge-Specific Information Maintained On Corruption Complaints Against Judges : Supreme Court Tells Delhi High Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that no judge-specific information is maintained regarding complaints of corruption or misconduct.The Court was hearing a petition filed by journalist and RTI activist Saurav Das seeking information under the Right to Information Act 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.Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for Das, submitted 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.A bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav heard the matter.“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.”Bhushan was referring to the recent data disclosed by the Government that the office of the Chief Justice of India has received 8, 630 complaints against the sitting judges in the last ten years.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 opened 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 for 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.No judge-specific information maintained by SCThe SC's counsel submitted :“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."Further, the counsel said that inputs received on complaints are quite different from the decision...

No Judge-Specific Information Maintained On Corruption Complaints Against Judges : Supreme Court Tells Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags