CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA V. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL 2019 INSC 1233:

DATE: 13/11/2019

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Chief Justice Ranjan Gogo, Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

FACTS:

The case originated from three RTI applications filed by activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal between 2009 and 2010. The first application sought details about whether judges of the Supreme Court had declared their assets in accordance with a 1997 resolution passed by the Supreme Court judges themselves. The second application requested a copy of the correspondence between the Chief Justice of India and the Union Law Ministry concerning the appointment of certain judges to the higher judiciary. The third application sought information regarding alleged instances of corruption involving a Union Minister, which had been reported by a judge of the Supreme Court. All three applications were denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court, citing exemptions under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

These denials led to appeals before the Central Information Commission (CIC), which ruled in favor of Subhash Chandra Agarwal, directing disclosure of the information. The Supreme Court Registry challenged these CIC orders in the Delhi High Court, which upheld the CIC's decision and emphasized transparency in the functioning of the judiciary. Aggrieved by this, the Supreme Court's CPIO appealed to the Supreme Court itself. The matter was ultimately referred to a Constitution Bench, which had to decide whether the office of the Chief Justice of India falls within the ambit of “public authority” under the RTI Act, and whether such information could be disclosed without affecting the independence of the judiciary.

ISSUES:

The key issue in this case was whether the office of the Chief Justice of India falls under the definition of a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and if information related to judicial appointments, judges' assets, and misconduct can be disclosed without undermining judicial independence and confidentiality.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court reasoned that judicial independence does not imply judicial secrecy and that transparency is vital in maintaining public trust in the institution. The Court emphasized that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is designed to promote openness and accountability in governance, and this objective extends to the judiciary as well. It held that the Chief Justice of India, though holding a constitutional position, performs administrative functions which fall within the purview of the RTI Act. Therefore, the office of the CJI is not beyond scrutiny, especially when the information sought is related to the discharge of administrative duties and not judicial decision-making.

The Court also clarified that while the CJI’s office is subject to the RTI Act, the right to information is not absolute. Information disclosure must be balanced with the need to protect confidentiality, privacy, and institutional integrity. The judiciary, like any other public authority, must comply with the RTI framework, including the exemptions provided under Section 8 of the Act. The Court cautioned that each RTI request involving the judiciary must be carefully examined on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the core values of transparency and judicial independence are both safeguarded.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of judicial transparency in India. By holding that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls within the scope of the RTI Act, the Court reinforced the principle that no public authority, including the judiciary, is beyond the reach of transparency mechanisms. This judgment struck a careful balance between maintaining the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that its administrative actions are open to public scrutiny. The ruling is especially significant because it dispels the notion that transparency inherently threatens judicial autonomy, instead positioning openness as a mechanism to build institutional credibility.

The Court's nuanced approach acknowledged that while transparency is essential, it cannot be absolute and must be harmonized with the need to protect sensitive information. By emphasizing the case-by-case assessment of RTI disclosures and reiterating the importance of exemptions under Section 8 of the Act, the judgment created a structured framework for handling future RTI applications related to the judiciary. This ensures that transparency does not compromise the functional and ethical integrity of the judicial system. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to democratic principles, judicial accountability, and public trust—essential pillars for the legitimacy of any democratic institution.