Law Web: Whether oath taken by high court judge can be disclosed under RTI?

Respondent No.1 herein in the application filed under Section 6(1)

of the Act of 2005 had only stated that he wish to have the copy of

the oath taken and subscribed by the Hon'ble Judges of the High

Court which is exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j)

of the Act of 2005, as respondent No.1 herein did not disclose any

public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking

such information of the Hon'ble Judges in the said application nor

was any finding recorded by the second appellate authority i.e. the

Chhattisgarh State Information Commission as to the involvement

of any larger public interest in directing supply of such information

to respondent No.1 under Section 19(8)(a)(i) of the Act of 2005.

The application as filed by respondent No.1 is blissfully silent in that

regard. There is no averment in the application, how the public

interest requires disclosure of such information and the application

is silent in this regard.Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application

filed by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act of 2005 was

bereft and fails to fulfill the requirement under Section 8(1)(j) of the

Act of 2005 and thus, grant of such information by the learned

Information Commission simply holding that oath is taken by the

Hon'ble Judges in public in presence of respectable persons as

such, the information sought for is granted under Sections 8 and

19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act of 2005, runs contrary to the law and is liable

to be quashed.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.19 of 2017

Order delivered on: 5-8-2019

The Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Vs Arun Kumar Gupta,

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been invoked by the Public Information Officer of the High

Court of Chhattisgarh (for short, 'this Court') calling in question

legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by respondent

No.2 herein (Chhattisgarh State Information Commission) by which

the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (for short, 'the

Information Commission') has set aside the order passed by the

Public Information Officer as well as by the appellate authority and

directed under Section 19(8)(a)(i) of the Right to Information Act,

2005 (for short, 'the Act of 2005') to provide the information sought

for by the information seeker / respondent No.1 herein, dubbing the

order as arbitrary and contrary to the provisions contained in

Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 2005.

2. The information seeker / respondent No.1 herein made an

application to the Public Information Officer of this Court invoking

Section 6(1) of the Act of 2005 seeking copy of oath taken and

subscribed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Agarwal (now His Lordship has demitted

the office). The Public Information Officer rejected the said

application in light of exemption provided under Section 8(1)(e) of

the Act of 2005 which was affirmed by the first appellate authority in

an appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein by order dated 3-

12-2015. However, the second appellate authority / the Information

Commission interfered with the order passed by the two authorities

as stated above and directed for furnishing the information sought

for by respondent No.1 herein i.e. copy of oath taken and

subscribed by the two Hon'ble Judges of this Court as mentioned

above under Sections 8 and 19(8)(a)(i) of the Act of 2005. Feeling

aggrieved against that order this writ petition has been filed in which

the order passed by the Information Commission i.e. the second

appellate authority has been called in question principally on the

ground that it is violative of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 2005 and

further on the ground that the two authorities had already satisfied

that the larger public interest is not involved warranting the

disclosure of such information and the Information Commission

ought not to have interfered with by the orders of the two authorities

(that is the Public Information Officer and the appellate authority).

3. No return has been filed by the respondents though opportunities

were granted to them.

4. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

would submit that the learned Information Commission is absolutely

unjustified in granting the application filed by respondent No.1 /

information seeker by setting aside the concurrent finding recorded

by the two authorities in which it has been clearly held that such an

information is clearly barred from disclosure of such information and

is exempted by the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(e) or 8(1)(j)

of the Act of 2005, as such, the impugned order directing the

disclosure of such information being contrary to law is liable to be

set aside.

5. No one has appeared for respondent No.1, though served with

notice of this writ petition.

6. Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2, would support the impugned order and submit

that the impugned order is strictly in accordance with law and no

interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and went through the record with

utmost circumspection.

8. The question for consideration would be, whether respondent No.1

is entitled to get the copy of oath taken and subscribed by the

Hon'ble Judges of this Court which they have taken before they

have entered upon their office as prescribed under Article 219 of the Constitution of India according to the form set out in Clause VIII of

Third Schedule of the Constitution of India or it is protected under

the provisions contained in either Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 2005

or Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005?

9. In order to decide the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate

to notice the provisions contained in Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of

the Act of 2005 which read as follows: -

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there

shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(d) xxx xxx xxx

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary

relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied

that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of

such information;

(f) xxx xxx xxx

(g) xxx xxx xxx

(h) xxx xxx xxx

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(j) information which relates to personal information

the disclosure of which has no relationship to any

public activity or interest, or which would cause

unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual

unless the Central Public Information Officer or the

State Public Information Officer or the appellate

authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the

larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such

information:

Provided that the information, which cannot be

denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not

be denied to any person.”

10. From a careful perusal of the aforesaid provision, Section 8(1)(j) of 5 the Act of 2005, it is quite vivid that the exemption would attract in

two contingencies namely, (a) if the information is personal in

nature and has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and

(b) furnishing of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of

privacy of an individual. However, these exemptions are subject to

the opinion that may be formed by the Central or State Public

Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be,

that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such

information.

11. The conflict between the right to personal privacy and the public

interest in the disclosure of personal information stands recognized

by the legislature in terms of exempting purely personal information

under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005. Under such exemption

clause, the disclosure may be refused if the request pertains to

personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any

public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted

invasion of the privacy of the individual.

12. In the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central

Information Commr.1, the petitioner therein sought certain

information regarding an employee who was employed as an

Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Office, Akola. The information

sought for was not granted by the authorities including the High

Court against which the SLP was taken in which Their Lordships of

the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal upholding the order

passed by the High Court and held as under: -

“12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts

below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e.

1 (2013) 1 SCC 212

copies of all memos issued to the third respondent,

show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment,

etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in

clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The

performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is

primarily a matter between the employee and the

employer and normally those aspects are governed by

the service rules which fall under the expression

'personal information', the disclosure of which has no

relationship to any public activity or public interest. On

the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause

unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of

course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information

Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the

appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public

interest justifies the disclosure of such information,

appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner

cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax

returns are 'personal information' which stand exempted

from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI

Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the

Central Public Information Officer or the State Public

Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied

that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of

such information.”

13. Similar is the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in

the matter of R.K. Jain v. Union of India and another2. The

judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra

Deshpande (supra) and R.K. Jain (supra) has been followed

recently by the Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Rep.

By its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam and another3 and it

was held as under:-

“14. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned

principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all

force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information

sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees

working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it

was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of

the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any

public interest much less larger public interest involved in

seeking such information of the individual employee and

nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information

2 (2013) 14 SCC 794

3 (2017) SCC Online SC 1023

Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of

any larger public interest in supplying such information to

respondent No.1.

15. It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view

that the application made by respondent No.1 under

Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was,

therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information

Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas

wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission

and the High Court.”

14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid

principles of law in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that

respondent No.1 herein sought information about the copy of the

oath taken and subscribed by the two Hon'ble Judge of this Court

under Article 219 of the Constitution of India which they have taken

before they have entered upon their office according to the form set

out in Clause VIII of Third Schedule of the Constitution.