Chhattisgarh High Court Protects Judicial Officers' Privacy in Landmark RTI Ruling
The Chhattisgarh High Court has made a decisive move to safeguard the privacy of judicial officers. In a significant judgment, the court set aside an order from the State Information Commission. That order had directed the court's registry to disclose personal information about three judicial officers to an RTI applicant.
Court Upholds Privacy and Fiduciary Protections
Justice Sachin Singh Rajput delivered the ruling on January 14. He allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by the High Court and its Public Information Officer. The court firmly stated that information concerning departmental enquiries, service certificates, and complaints against judicial officers qualifies as personal information. It also falls under fiduciary data.
The judgment emphasized a critical distinction. Judicial service cannot be treated like ordinary government employment. Judicial officers wield sovereign power. They operate under the administrative and disciplinary control of the high court, as mandated by Article 235 of the Indian Constitution.
Origins of the Case and Legal Journey
The case began with an RTI application from Rajkumar Mishra, a resident of Chirmiri. Mishra sought confidential details about three judicial officers. His request included the certificates they submitted to secure their jobs. He also wanted records of any departmental enquiries initiated against them.
The High Court's Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority both rejected this request initially. However, on January 7, 2019, the State Information Commissioner took a different view. The Commissioner allowed a second appeal. He directed the High Court to provide the requested information free of charge within thirty days. The High Court subsequently challenged this directive in court.
Court's Detailed Legal Reasoning
The High Court dismissed one argument from the petitioners. They claimed the SIC order was void because a single commissioner passed it, not a multi-member bench. The court cited Supreme Court precedents. It noted that the absence of an explicit provision for benches does not strip an individual commissioner of the authority to decide appeals.
However, the court found substantial merit in another argument. The requested data is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This section exempts personal information from disclosure if it has no relation to any public activity or interest, or if it would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
This ruling reinforces the unique status of the judiciary. It underscores the balance between transparency and the necessary privacy protections for those who administer justice.
