Akshita Dikshit

Ballb energy law batch 1

TEST 2 for RTI :

1. Write the case analysis of CPIO, SC of India v Subhash chandra agarwal.

The current case concerns three appeals originating from distinct orders denying the RTI Act's
necessary access to information. The first of the appeals concerned a right to information (RTI)
request made by the respondent, Subhash Chandra Agarwal, based on a media storey. The
respondent requested the Chief Justice of India's entire communication involving a Union
Minister purportedly approaching Justice R Raghupati of the Madras High Court through a
lawyer in order to sway a judicial judgementThe second appeal involves a request for a copy of
papers held by the Supreme Court via an RTI application. A correspondence between the
necessary constitutional authorities pertaining to the nomination of several Supreme Court
judges who would supersede other senior judges was contained in this. The third appeal involves
an RTI request for information on a declaration made by judges of the Supreme Court and Chief
Justices of the States detailing the assets held by them, their wives, or anybody dependent on
them.

The Supreme Court of India's Constitution Bench ruled that the Supreme Court is a "public
authority" and hence falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (RTI Act).
Subhash Chandra Agarwal, an Indian businessman and right to information activist, filed
separate applications with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) requesting access to
information relating to the assets of sitting judges, as well as correspondence relating to judge
appointments and alleged influence on a decision. The petitions were declined, with the
explanation that the sought material was either exempt or secret. The Chief Material Commission
(CIC) authorised access to the information following an appeal. The Delhi High Court heard an
appeal against one of the rulings, and its Full Bench ruled that the Chief Justice of India's Office
is a public authority subject to the RTI Act. The Court used a proportionality test to determine
that the sought information on the Supreme Court's functioning and judicial assets should be
given in the sake of transparency and accountability, but that information about third parties
needed to be re-examined.
ISSUES

1) Does the public publication of information about the Chief Justice of India's office and the
collegium system constitute a breach of judicial independence?

2) Is the information sought in the public interest exempt under section 8(1)(j)?

3) Whether the publication of the sought information about judges would limit or impede the
constitutional authorities from openly and candidly expressing their opinions.

After hearing both parties' arguments and examining the circumstances of the case, On
November 13, 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruled in favour of the
respondent, and upheld the Delhi High Court judgement by ordering the Supreme Court's Central
Public Information Officer (CIPO) to provide the requested information about collegium
decision-making, judges' personal assets, and correspondence with the Chief Justice of India.
The court did not reach any broad conclusions on the universal disclosure of the sought
material.The highest court further stated that a prohibition on information disclosure cannot be
enforced on the basis of collegium members' free and open expression, and that disclosure will
be done on a case-by-case basis.In view of balancing 'informational privacy' with the 'greater
public interest,' Justice Chandrachud's harmonic reading of 'personal information' as'third party
information' has been proposed.

2. Explain the remedy available to the citizen incase his application for RTI is
rejected.

In case a person is aggrieved by the rejection of his application seeking information from a
public authority, he has the following remedies against such rejection

• Appellate Authority: An appeal can be taken to a departmental Appellate Authority, who is a

higher-ranking officer in the same public authority as the PIO. Before making a judgement on
the validity of the PIO's order, the Appellate Authority must hear both parties. If the Appellate
Authority's ruling is not satisfied, a second appeal can be lodged to the Information Commission.
The appeal procedure is outlined in Section 19 of the Act, and it consists of two steps: first, an
appeal to the Appellate Authority, and then an appeal to one of the newly constituted Information
Commissions. The appeals procedure is designed to be a faster and less expensive alternative to
going to court to have a judgement reviewed.

• Complaint: Any matter relating to accessing information under the RTI Act, such as not
providing information within a reasonable time frame, charging unreasonable fees, denying a fee
waiver despite being a Below Poverty Line person, destroying a record that you had requested,
or making a bad decision about disclosure, can be brought directly to the relevant Information
Commission..