The main legal point established is that under the RTI Act, a judge is not obliged to explain later on for what reasons he had come to a particular decision, and seeking such information through the RTI Act can be deemed illegal and unwarranted.

This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 28810 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the petitioners application and successive appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the "RTI Act") has been dismissed. In the said petition, the direction was sought by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 to provide information as asked by him vide his application dated 15.11.2006 from the Respondent No. 4 - a Judicial Officer as for what reasons, the Respondent No.4 had decided his Miscellaneous Appeal dishonestly.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are, that the petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of the land in respect of which civil suit No. 854 of 2002 was filed before Additional Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for perpetual injunction by Dr. Mallikarjina Rao against the petitioner and another, from entering into the suit land. Application filed for interim relief in the said suit stood dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff therein preferred CMA No. 185 of 2002 and the same was also dismissed. Two other suits were filed in respect of the same property impleading the Petitioner also as the defendant. In one of the suits i.e. O.S. No. 875 of 2003, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred the CMA No. 67 of 2005, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court - Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10.8.2006.

3. Petitioner filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under Section 6 of the RTI Act before the Administrative Officer-cum-Assistant State Public Information Officer (respondent no. 1) seeking information to the queries mentioned therein. The said application was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2006 and an appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2007. Second Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission vide order dated 20.11.2007. The petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court, seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1 to furnish the information as under what circumstances the Respondent No. 4 had passed the Judicial Order dismissing the appeal against the interim relief granted by the Trial Court. The Respondent No. 4 had been impleaded as respondent by name. The Writ Petition had been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that the information sought by the petitioner cannot be asked for under the RTI Act. Thus, the application was not maintainable. More so, the judicial officers are protected by the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 (hereinafter called the "Act 1850"). Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. V. Kanagaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that right to information is a fundamental right of every citizen. The RTI Act does not provide for any special protection to the Judges, thus petitioner has a right to know the reasons as to how the Respondent No. 4 has decided his appeal in a particular manner. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner was maintainable. Rejection of the application by the Respondent No. 1 and Appellate authorities rendered the petitioner remediless. Petitioner vide application dated 15.11.2006 had asked as under what circumstances the Respondent No. 4 ignored the written arguments and additional written arguments, as the ignorance of the same tantamount to judicial dishonesty, the Respondent No.4 omitted to examine the fabricated documents filed by the plaintiff; and for what reason the respondent no. 4 omitted to examine the documents filed by the petitioner. Similar information had been sought on other points.

5. At the outset, it must be noted that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Respondent No. 4. Instead, he had filed the application under Section 6