Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur, MP

Academic year 2023-24

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Case Comment: Secretary General, Supreme Court of
India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
166 (2010) DLT 305 (FB)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mrs. Ruchira Chaturvedi Damini Patil
(Assistant professor of law) BALLB/028/022

& IVth Semester

Ms. Bhagyashree Aggarwal Section ‘A’
(Teaching Associate)

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………..3
FACTS………………………………………………………………………………..4
ISSUES……………………………………………………………………………….4
JUDGEMENT……………………………………………………………………….. 5
ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………….6
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….. 6

2|Page
Introduction
Right to Information, as an essential right, especially in a democratic country like ours, was first considered
in the case of Raj Narain v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court rejected the government's claims of
privilege on the Prime Minister's security instructions and stated that it is the responsibility of officials to
explain and justify their actions, as it is of utmost public importance and is essential to preventing corruption
in the country.
The notion of Right to Information was enlarged in the People's Union for Civil Liabilities case, which
concluded that citizens' right to information included the right to know about the assets of candidates
running for election.
The judiciary, as the protector of the Constitution, has been tasked with the most crucial feature of
democracy: ensuring justice. However, pervasive corruption and a lack of transparency have called into
doubt the integrity of the judiciary, and there has been a growing demand for greater responsibility in recent
years. In an attempt to seek transparency in this field, an RTI activist filed an application, which eventually
led to the question of whether the office of Chief Justice is a public office or not, which was extensively
discussed in this case, with the Delhi High Court answering affirmatively.
The case of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2010) DLT 305 (FB)
stands as a landmark in India's legal landscape, addressing the pivotal question of transparency within the
judiciary. At its core, this case confronts the clash between the cherished principles of judicial independence
and the public's right to information, as enshrined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In a society where governmental transparency is increasingly valued as a cornerstone of democracy, this

case emerges as a crucial turning point. It not only sheds light on the evolving contours of the RTI Act but
also probes the boundaries of accountability within one of India's most revered institutions, the Supreme
Court. Against this backdrop, this commentary will dissect the intricacies of the case, scrutinizing the legal
reasoning behind the Delhi High Court's decision and exploring its implications for the broader legal
framework. Through a comprehensive analysis, we aim to unravel the significance of this case in shaping
the discourse surrounding judicial transparency and accountability in contemporary India.

3|Page
Facts
In 2009, Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a renowned activist known for his advocacy of transparency and
accountability in governance, filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Agarwal sought
information regarding the declaration of assets by judges of the Supreme Court of India, including the Chief
Justice of India. The application was directed to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court.

The application aimed to unveil the financial declarations made by judges, particularly focusing on their
movable and immovable assets, as part of efforts to enhance transparency and integrity within the judiciary.
However, the Secretary General of the Supreme Court rejected Agarwal's RTI application, contending that
the office of the Chief Justice of India and judges of the Supreme Court did not qualify as "public
authorities" under the RTI Act.

Aggrieved by the refusal to provide the requested information, Subhash Chandra Agarwal challenged the
decision before the Delhi High Court. The central issue before the court was whether the office of the Chief
Justice of India and judges of the Supreme Court could be considered as "public authorities" under the RTI
Act, thereby subject to the obligations of transparency and disclosure mandated by the Act.

The case garnered significant attention due to its potential ramifications for judicial transparency,
accountability, and the delicate balance between the judiciary's independence and the public's right to
information. It prompted a thorough examination of the legal framework surrounding the RTI Act and its
applicability to the highest echelons of the Indian judiciary.

Issues
1. Whether the Chief Justice of India's office and judges of the Supreme Court fall under the ambit of
"public authorities" as defined by the RTI Act.
2. Whether the assets declared by judges of the Supreme Court should be disclosed to the public under
the RTI Act.

4|Page
Judgement
The Court determined that the Chief Justice's office is a "public authority" under the Right to Information
(RTI) Act since it conducts several administrative activities in addition to adjudicatory duties. The Act
consequently controlled access to the information it maintained. The Court emphasised that information
relevant to filed declarations and their contents constituted "information" under Section 2 (f) of the Act.
The CPIO said that, presuming such asset declarations constituted "information" under the Act,
dissemination would violate a fiduciary obligation due to the judges. The 1997 Resolution also included a
requirement requiring the secrecy of asset disclosures. The Court rejected this claim, stating that the Chief
Justice of India could not be a fiduciary to Supreme Court justices since judges held autonomous offices and
the CJI had no control over their business or actions. The Court emphasised that simply designating a
document as 'confidential' does not contradict the overarching purpose of the Act regarding information
secrecy.

The CPIO further claimed that access to asset information would result in an unreasonable intrusion into
judges' privacy. The Court determined that Section 8(1)(j) of the Act did, in fact, provide for an exemption
from disclosure of a third party's personal information based on privacy. The exemption was applicable
regardless of whether the third party was a private individual or a governmental authority. The Court stated
that if the material pertains to a third party, "public interest in disclosure is required." In the case of public
servants, the level of private protection was lower, therefore a greater public interest in disclosure was more
likely to prevail over the interest in privacy. Once the requester of information established "the larger public
interest," the next stage for a relevant authority was to contact a third party (the public servant) and
ultimately weigh the interest in disclosure against privacy concerns.
The Court directed the CPIO to divulge information regarding Supreme Court justices' asset declarations,
but not their content, because the requester had not requested it.

5|Page
Critical analysis

One of the central themes of this case is the tension between safeguarding judicial independence and
ensuring judicial accountability. While judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy, it cannot be
absolute and immune from scrutiny. The judiciary derives its legitimacy from public trust, and
accountability mechanisms such as the RTI Act serve to reinforce this trust by promoting transparency in
judicial functioning.

The interpretation of the term "public authorities" under the RTI Act is pivotal in this case. The Delhi High
Court's determination that the office of the Chief Justice of India and judges of the Supreme Court fall
within the ambit of "public authorities" underscores the broad and inclusive interpretation of the Act. This
interpretation aligns with the overarching objective of the RTI Act to enhance governmental transparency
and accountability across all branches of governance.

The court's decision to uphold the petitioner's right to information regarding the declaration of assets by
judges signifies a significant step towards promoting transparency and fostering public trust in the judiciary.
Disclosing such information not only enhances accountability but also reinforces the judiciary's commitment
to integrity and ethical conduct.

However, it is essential to recognize the need for a delicate balance between transparency and judicial
independence. Excessive intrusion into judicial affairs could potentially undermine the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary, which are essential for upholding the rule of law. Therefore, any measures
aimed at enhancing transparency must be carefully calibrated to preserve the judiciary's autonomy and
insulation from external influences.

The judgment in this case has far-reaching implications for judicial governance and the broader legal
framework in India. It sets a precedent for greater transparency and accountability within the judiciary,
which may necessitate reforms in judicial governance practices, including the disclosure of assets by judges
and other transparency measures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
exemplifies the intricate balance between judicial independence, governmental transparency, and the public's
right to information. While the decision advances the cause of transparency and accountability, it also
underscores the need to safeguard judicial autonomy and integrity. Moving forward, striking a harmonious
balance between these competing interests will be essential for fostering a robust and trustworthy judiciary
in India.

6|Page
7|Page