Salary Details Of Judges Not Exempted From RTI Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that details regarding the pay scale/salary details of judges are not information that is exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358] Justice M Dhandapani noted that the judges receive their salary from the Consolidated Fund of India and since the salary is paid from public funds, a citizen cannot be prevented from knowing about the details of the same. “Coming to the second part of the information sought for, it relates to the pay scale/salary details, which is a matter of public record, as the Judges receive the salary from out of the Consolidated Fund of India and their pay being paid from the public fund, the public, including the 2nd respondent, who is a citizen of India cannot be precluded from knowing the details and, therefore, there would be no embargo for providing the said information as it is not exempted u/s 8 of the RTI Act,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by the Registrar General of the High Court against an order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission directing it to provide information sought by an applicant under the RTI Act. The applicant, Akbar Ahamed had filed an RTI application seeking certain information regarding the details of the High Court of Madras (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-person) Rules 2019, more specifically, the Name & designation of the members of the Party-in-person committee, their previous & present experience in the field of law, their achievements in the field of law, their qualification, their expertise, conduct details, pay scale/salary details, and functions, responsibilities, powers of the Administrative Committee of the High Court. The Public Information Officer of the High Court denied the information. In appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Public Information Officer. The applicant thus preferred a second appeal to the State Information Commission, who directed the High Court to provide the information sought for. This order was challenged in the present case. The registry argued that the information was with respect to internal administration and was exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Reliance was placed on an order of the High Court in Registrar General, High Court of Madras v K Elango, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, holding that information relating to enquiries by the Vigilance Department and personal details unconnected with the discharge of duties were exempted from disclosure under the Act. The State Information Commission, however, argued that the information sought for by the applicant did not fall under any of the exemptions since the information was not held by the registry in a fiduciary capacity. It was also pointed out that the information sought for did not relate to ay personal information, but one which was shareable if sought for by the Parliament or State Legislature. It was thus argued that the commission had passed the order after considering all the relevant factors and the order was not erroneous, illegal or arbitrary. The court noted that the information sought for by the applicant was not exempted information under the Act since it was available in the public domain and accessible by each and every citizen. The court also noted that the other details sought for by the applicant were regarding the Party-in-person committee and the composition of its members and their qualifications. The court noted that the constitution of the committee was an administrative act, which was not classified information. The court added that stating such information would in no way jeopardise the administrative functioning of the High Court. The court added that there was no element of confidentiality or sensitivity involved in sharing the information sought for by the applicant, with respect to the functioning of the committees since the same had already been demarcated by various decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court. The court thus rejected the plea by the High Court registry and disposed of the plea, directing the registry to provide the information within 2 weeks. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ayyadurai, SC, for Mr. A. Durai Eswar Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C. Vigneswaran Case Title: The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358 Case No: WP NO 13842 OF 2024Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Salary Details Of Judges Not Exempted From RTI Act: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Salary Details Of Judges Not Exempted From RTI Act: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers