DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
28th May 2021
JUDGES:
K.G. Balakrishnan, B.S. Chauhan
SUBJECT
The following judgments deal with the issue of whether or not any citizen under the Right to Information Act,2005 can question the thoughts and motives of the judicial officer while passing judicial orders in his official capacity.
AN OVERVIEW
- The present special leave petition was file against the judgment dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the petitioner's application and successive appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been dismissed.
- The petitioner claims that under the Right To Information Act, 2005, He is entitled to the information as to under what circumstances the Judicial officer has passed the judicial order dismissing the appeal against the interim relief granted by the Trial Court.
- The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court because the information which was sought by the petitioner was not valid under the RTI Act. Thus, the application was not maintainable. Moreover, according to the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 the judicial officers are protected by the Judicial.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section-6 of The Right To Information Act, 2005- This section deals with the provisions dealing with the request for obtaining information.
- THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT, 1850- This act protects the officers working in their judicial capacity from liability arising from official acts done in good faith.
ISSUES
This petition raises the question in front of the Supreme Court that whether a citizen is entitled under The RTI Act, 2005 to question the judicial officer his thought process while passing a judicial order in his official capacity.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. According to which the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the petitioner's application and successive appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been dismissed.
- In this petition, the petitioner filed an application under section 6 of the right to information act,2009, seeking information from the judicial office regarding why certain documents and arguments were not considered by the learned Judge while deciding his appeal. The petitioner had also provided detail of some documents which were not considered while deciding the case by the Judge.
- Mr. V. Kanagaraj the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the right to information is a fundamental right of every citizen. The RTI Act does not provide any special protection to the Judges. Thus, the petitioner has a right to know about the reasons for which the Respondent has decided his appeal in a particular manner. Therefore, making the petition maintainable.
- The respondent held that the application was nothing but a memo of appeal, which could have been filed before the appellate court, but, instead of approaching the appellate court, the petitioner had filed an application under the RTI Act asking how learned Judge had come to a particular conclusion, either by perusing or ignoring certain documents placed on record of the said case. They held that the petitioner, under the guise of seeking information from the respondent had virtually asked to know as to why and for what reason, a Judicial Officer, had come to a particular conclusion, which was against the petitioner. Thus, by way of the application under Section 6, the petitioner wanted to know from the respondent as to what transpired in his mind while deciding the case. The respondents held that what transpired in the mind of the judge at the time of deciding the case would not come within the definition of “record”. Under the provision of this act, a citizen can only seek information that is available on record with public authority in material form and cannot seek clarification by raising queries as to what was in the mind of the judge while deciding the case. For this purpose, he has to read the judgment and look at the reasons recorded by the learned judge and if he is aggrieved by the judgment for any reason, he has to file an appeal. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had made the petition to put allegations against the judge, which is unjust. Even otherwise, It is provided under Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act,1850 that no person shall be liable to be sued in civil court for the performance of his judicial duty.
- The supreme court held that It is undisputed that the right of information is a fundamental right, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (supra). However, under the provisions of the Act, a public authority is obligated to provide such information which is recorded and stored and it does not include the thinking process which transpired within the mind of the judge while passing the order therefore the Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s claims were unjustified. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed, the remedy lies elsewhere, but not the one which he has chosen to avail under the provisions of the Act. Given, the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition and, therefore, the petition is rejected.
CONCLUSION
The Right to Information Act, 2005 provides that every citizen has the right to have any information from any public office of the Central or the State Government. In this case The Supreme Court had to decide that whether the provision of this act can be used by an individual to question the thoughts and opinions of the judge giving the judicial order. It was held by the court that what transpires in the mind of the Judge would not come under the definition of the word “record”. Under the provisions of the Act, a citizen can seek only information, which is available on record with the public authority in material form, but cannot seek clarification by what went on in the mind of the Judge when he was deciding the case.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
