Vedanth sharma (Nil) 12 December 2020

Office of cji

Does the office of the CJI fall under the ambit of RTI? Are there any significant precedents?

Reply Follow

4 Replies

175B083 Mahesh P S 12 December 2020

Hello,

Yes the office of the CJI falls under the purview of RTI,

Right to Information (RTI) is an act of the Indian Parliament which sets out the rules and procedures concerning citizens' right to information.

It superseded the former Freedom of Information Act 2002. As per the provisions of RTI Act, any citizen of India has the right to request for information from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days.

In case of matter has bearing on a petitioner's life and liberty, the information has to be provided within 48 hours. As per the Act, every public authority must computerise their records for wide dissemination and to proactively certain categories of information so that the citizens can easily gain access to information they are seeking.

The Act very prominently states that every Indian citizen has the right to request for information from a “public authority. But what is actually pondered over is the scope of the term “public authority”. The question of who and what falls under the purview of “public authority” is often pondered over.

Caselaw

In the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court V. Subash Chandra Agarwal the Supreme Court stated that the Office of the CJI, falls under the purview of “Public Authority” under the Right To Information Act.

The judgement was made by a five-judge, constitutional bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The main judgment of the Constitution Bench was authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna stated that the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Therefore, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.

Supporting the judgement Justice Chandrachud stated that it is important to publish information pertaining to the basis of selection and appointment of judges, in the public domain.

The court also underlined the importance of Maintaining confidentiality in some aspects of judicial information.

The Bench asserted that the Right to information was not an absolute right and that the right to information of the citizens must be in coherence with the right to privacy of judges.

Justice Ramana stated that “Right to information should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance.”

Thank you