In a significant ruling aimed at enhancing accountability within the judiciary, the Uttarakhand State Information Commission has directed the Uttarakhand High Court to disclose statistical data concerning complaints and disciplinary proceedings against trial court judges in the state. The order, dated January 1, 2026, mandates the provision of anonymised, aggregate information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The Case and the Appellant's Quest
The directive came during a hearing of a second appeal filed by Sanjiv Chaturvedi, a 2002-batch Indian Forest Service officer currently serving as Chief Conservator of Forest (Working Plan) at the Forest Training Institute in Haldwani. The appeal originated from an RTI application Chaturvedi filed on May 14, 2025, seeking detailed information from the office of the Registrar General of the Uttarakhand High Court.
His request included certified copies of service rules for trial court judges, procedures for disciplinary actions, and crucially, the total number of complaints filed against trial court judges in Uttarakhand between January 1, 2020, and April 15, 2025. He also sought data on how many of these complaints led to recommended or initiated disciplinary or criminal proceedings.
The Legal Tussle and Commission's Verdict
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the High Court had initially provided only limited information in a response dated June 19, 2025, withholding other details citing confidentiality and institutional sensitivity. After a first appeal was dismissed in July 2025, Chaturvedi approached the State Information Commission.
During proceedings before Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi, the appellant argued that denial of information violated his fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. The High Court's PIO countered that such data was confidential and required the Chief Justice's approval, warning that indiscriminate disclosure could affect judicial independence.
The Commission, in its order, drew a clear distinction. It held that while individual complaint files and personal details of judges are protected, the RTI Act does not prohibit the disclosure of non-personal, statistical, and anonymised information. The Commission found that the appellant's request for numerical data on complaints and actions taken did not automatically fall under exempted categories.
A Balanced Order for Transparency
The Commission's order emphasizes that transparency and accountability are integral to democratic governance but must be balanced with the need to protect judicial independence. Consequently, it directed the PIO to:
- Obtain necessary approval from the competent authority.
- Provide aggregate data on the total number of complaints received against subordinate judicial officers for the specified period.
- Disclose the number of cases where disciplinary or criminal action was recommended or initiated.
- Ensure no names, identities, or case-specific confidential details are revealed.
- Supply this information to the appellant within one month of receiving the order.
However, the Commission rejected Chaturvedi's demand for internal file notings and correspondence, deeming them too sensitive for disclosure. With these directions, the second appeal was partly allowed.
Expert Views and Wider Context
Senior advocates have hailed the order as a landmark development for transparency in the district judiciary. They noted that the appeal was filed in the context of concerns over certain judicial practices. This case in Uttarakhand stands in contrast to a similar request made in the Delhi High Court in August 2025, which was declined on grounds that no such compiled data was maintained and citing privacy exemptions under the RTI Act.
The Uttarakhand State Information Commission's ruling sets a precedent for accessing statistical information about the functioning of the judiciary, reinforcing the public's right to information while upholding the sanctity of judicial processes.
