Chhattisgarh High Court Rules Complaints Against Judicial Officers Exempt from RTI Disclosure as Personal Information

Introduction

In a significant ruling reinforcing the privacy rights of judicial officers, the Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside directives from the State Information Commission (SIC) that mandated the disclosure of sensitive service-related information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, in a common order dated January 14, 2025, allowed writ petitions filed by the administrative wing of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, including its Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA). The case stemmed from an RTI application by private individual Rajkumar Mishra seeking details on complaints, appointment certificates, and departmental inquiries against three unnamed judicial officers. The court held that such information qualifies as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is held in a fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e), exempting it from disclosure absent a demonstrated larger public interest. This decision underscores the balance between transparency and the confidentiality essential to judicial independence, potentially impacting how RTI requests involving judicial personnel are handled across Indian courts.

The ruling addresses a 2017 RTI query that escalated through appeals, culminating in the SIC's 2019 order for free disclosure via registered post. The High Court's intervention highlights ongoing tensions in RTI jurisprudence, particularly regarding employer-employee records in public institutions like the judiciary. By distinguishing judicial officers from ordinary government servants, the judgment emphasizes the unique constitutional safeguards under Article 235, which vests administrative and disciplinary control in High Courts. This outcome not only protects sensitive judicial records but also clarifies procedural aspects of SIC operations, rejecting challenges to single-commissioner decisions while prioritizing privacy exemptions.

Case Background

The dispute originated in July 2017 when Rajkumar Mishra, a resident of Chirmiri in Chhattisgarh's Koriya district, filed an RTI application with the PIO of the High Court of Chhattisgarh. Mishra sought specific details concerning three judicial officers: copies of complaints filed against them, certificates submitted at the time of their appointment to secure employment, and records of any departmental or other inquiries initiated against them. These officers were serving in various capacities within the state's judicial system, and the information pertained to their professional conduct and service history.

The PIO rejected the application on July 17, 2017, citing exemptions under the RTI Act, particularly Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j), which protect fiduciary and personal information. Mishra appealed to the FAA, who upheld the rejection on September 8, 2017, reiterating that the requested details were confidential service records maintained by the High Court as the employer. Undeterred, Mishra filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (CGSIC) under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

In its order dated January 7, 2019, the SIC, through a single Information Commissioner, allowed the appeal and directed the PIO to provide the information free of cost within 30 days via registered acknowledged post. The SIC reasoned that the information did not inherently invade privacy and was accessible as existing records, dismissing arguments against a "roving inquiry." Aggrieved, the High Court administration—represented by the Registrar General, PIO, and FAA—filed three consolidated writ petitions (WPC Nos. 1525/2019, and two others with similar facts) challenging the SIC's order as ultra vires the RTI Act.

The writ petitions were heard together due to identical issues, with the High Court examining the nature of the information, the SIC's jurisdiction, and the applicability of RTI exemptions. The timeline spanned from the initial RTI in 2017 to the High Court's decision in early 2025, reflecting delays common in administrative litigation. Key events included the petitioners' arguments on jurisdictional flaws and privacy breaches, countered by the SIC's defense of transparency. A prior High Court ruling in Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (MANU/CG/1692/2024) was referenced, distinguishing judicial officers' records from those of civilian employees. The case timeline underscores the procedural layers of RTI enforcement and the judiciary's role in safeguarding its own institutional integrity.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners, represented by advocates Amrito Das, Abhijeet Mishra, and Yashraj Verma, mounted a multi-pronged attack on the SIC's order. Primarily, they contended that the SIC lacked jurisdiction because Section 15 of the RTI Act constitutes the Commission as a multi-member body, requiring appeals under Section 19(3) to be decided collectively, not by a single commissioner. They argued that an individual order was corum non judice (without jurisdiction), rendering it void. Citing Virender Kumar v. P.S. Rana (AIR 2007 HP 63) and the High Court's own decision in Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi v. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee (WPC No. 2104/2017), they emphasized statutory compliance in multi-member bodies.

On the merits, the petitioners asserted that the SIC failed to assess the information's nature, acting arbitrarily without applying judicial precedents. They highlighted that RTI rights under Article 19(1)(a) are not absolute, subject to Article 19(2) restrictions. Specifically, the requested details—complaints, certificates, and inquiry records—did not qualify as "information" under Section 2(f), as they required a roving inquiry beyond existing, accessible records. Invoking Section 8(1)(j), they labeled the data as "personal information" unrelated to public activity or interest, disclosure of which would unwarrantedly invade privacy. As employer, the High Court held these records in fiduciary trust, exempt under Section 8(1)(e). They relied on Supreme Court precedents like Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner ((2013) 1 SCC 212), which treated employee performance records as personal; Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer ((2010) 2 SCC 1), on non-disclosure absent public interest; and Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay ((2011) 8 SCC 497), balancing transparency with confidentiality. The petitioners stressed no larger public interest justified disclosure, as Mishra's application appeared motivated by personal curiosity rather than public purpose.

The respondent CGSIC, represented by advocate Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, defended the order, arguing that Section 8(1)(j) only bars disclosure of information denied to Parliament or legislatures, and merely revealing names or basic details does not violate privacy. They maintained the SIC's directive was justified, as the records existed and could be provided without creating new information, aligning with Section 6's accessibility mandate. The private respondent, Rajkumar Mishra (appearing via video conferencing), echoed that the query did not invade privacy or fiduciary duties, as appointment documents and inquiries were public accountability tools. He distinguished the case from employee-employer confidentiality, citing CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal ((2020) 5 SCC 481) for transparency in judicial appointments and assets. Mishra argued the information served public interest in scrutinizing judicial integrity, not personal vendetta.

Both sides clashed on factual points: petitioners viewed the request as speculative and invasive, potentially undermining judicial discipline, while respondents framed it as routine RTI exercise promoting accountability in public employment.

Legal Analysis

The Chhattisgarh High Court's reasoning centered on a purposive interpretation of the RTI Act, prioritizing judicial confidentiality while upholding the statute's transparency goals. Justice Rajput first dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that individual Information Commissioners are empowered to decide appeals independently under the RTI Act's broad framework. Drawing from Central Information Commission v. DDA ((2024) 8 SCC 812), the court noted the Act's implicit allowance for work distribution among members to ensure efficiency, without negating the Commission's collective authority. The absence of explicit bench provisions did not invalidate single-member orders, as Sections 12(4) and 15(4) grant superintendence powers for effective functioning. This rejected the petitioners' reliance on Virender Kumar and Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi , which were deemed inapposite.

Turning to the core issue, the court affirmed that the SIC erred in not recognizing the fiduciary and personal nature of the records. Under Section 8(1)(e), information held in fiduciary relationships—such as an employer safeguarding employee service details—is exempt unless larger public interest warrants disclosure. The High Court, as employer under Article 235, holds complaints, certificates, and inquiry records in trust for judicial officers, who exercise sovereign judicial power distinct from ordinary civil servants. This fiduciary duty, per Black's Law Dictionary, involves trust and confidence, precluding betrayal through unwarranted disclosure.

Section 8(1)(j) further fortified the exemption, classifying the data as "personal information" with no nexus to public activity or interest. Echoing Girish Ramchandra Deshpande , the court observed that employer-employee matters, governed by service rules, are inherently private. Disclosure would cause unwarranted privacy invasion without justifying public benefit, especially since Mishra failed the public interest test. The application under Section 6(1) revealed no public purpose, appearing personal. The court distinguished CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal , limited to collegium transparency, and reinforced its prior ruling in Public Information Officer v. CGSIC (MANU/CG/1692/2024), stressing judicial officers' unique status: not subject to multi-layered oversight like civilians, their records protect autonomy and discipline under High Court control.

The analysis clarified distinctions: RTI demands existing, accessible information (Section 2(f)), not roving inquiries, but here records existed—yet exemptions applied. Precedents like Khanapuram Gandaiah and CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay balanced access with exemptions, emphasizing case-specific public interest. No such interest existed, as judicial confidentiality safeguards independence, preventing external pressures. This nuanced approach avoids absolutism, allowing disclosure only on compelling grounds, thus preserving RTI's spirit without eroding judicial integrity.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations underscoring the ruling's rationale. Key excerpts include:

• On the personal nature of the information: "The information sought for is maintained by the petitioners being employer of the judicial officers can be treated as records pertaining to personal information of those judicial officers and publication of the same is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as this is the matter between the employer and the employee and are governed by the Service Rules, therefore, falls under the expression 'personal information' and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest."

• Drawing from Girish Ramchandra Deshpande : "The performance of an employee/employer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and employer and normally those aspects are governed by 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."

• On fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e): "The complaints, documents and the certificates submitted by the judicial officers of the State of Chhattisgarh to secure the job sought under the RTI Act would be in the nature of fiduciary capacity and being so they cannot be disclosed unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information."

• Regarding public interest and the applicant's motive: "A bare perusal of the application made under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act does not show that such information was required for any public purpose, rather it appears to have been sought for the personal use of the applicant."

• Distinguishing judicial officers: From the prior High Court case, "Judicial service cannot be equated with service of other officers of the Government. A Judicial Officer is not an ordinary government servant... All the entries including narratives/notings/comments in the annual confidential report of a judicial officer if disclosed, the potential of severely limiting the disciplinary control of the superior judicial authority over their subordinates."

These quotes encapsulate the court's emphasis on privacy, fiduciary duties, and the absence of overriding public interest, providing clear guidance for future RTI applications.

Court's Decision

The Chhattisgarh High Court unequivocally allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the CGSIC's January 7, 2019, order in its entirety. Justice Rajput declared the directives to disclose the information "ill founded and liable to be set aside," affirming the PIO's initial rejection. No costs were imposed, and the decision was rendered as a common order for all three petitions, disposing of them accordingly.

Practically, this mandates that the High Court refrain from disclosing the requested details—complaints, appointment certificates, and inquiry records—unless a future applicant proves compelling public interest. The ruling reinforces procedural norms, validating single-commissioner SIC decisions while tightening exemptions for judicial records.

Implications are profound for RTI jurisprudence and judicial administration. It shields sensitive personnel files, preventing misuse that could erode judicial independence or invite harassment, aligning with constitutional imperatives under Article 235. Future cases involving judicial officers' records will require rigorous public interest demonstrations, potentially reducing frivolous RTI queries. For legal professionals, it signals caution in advising on transparency requests against the judiciary, emphasizing distinctions between personal/fiduciary data and public documents.

Broader effects include bolstering High Courts' autonomy in managing subordinate judiciary, as seen in the cited prior ruling. It may influence similar disputes nationwide, promoting a balanced RTI application that respects privacy without stifling accountability. In an era of increasing judicial scrutiny, this decision safeguards the institution while upholding the RTI Act's foundational principles, ensuring transparency serves public good without compromising core judicial functions.

This ruling, delivered amid evolving digital transparency demands, reminds stakeholders that not all institutional records are fodder for public consumption. As other sources note, such as parallel discussions on Supreme Court interventions in disciplinary matters, it contributes to a judiciary protective of its members yet accountable. Legal practitioners handling RTI appeals should now integrate this precedent, anticipating stricter scrutiny of personal information claims.