Judicial officers' complaints are personal information exempt from RTI disclosure unless public interest justifies it.

1. Impugning legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 21.3.2016 (Annexure P / 1) passed by respondent No.1 / State Information Commission, this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

2. Respondent No.2 made an application on 20.5.2015 to the Public Information Officer of the petitioner, seeking certain information "relating to voluntary retirement of Mr. A. K. Patel Additional District Judge, Durg and also demanded documents including the copies of complaints in respect of corruption / judicial irregularities allegedly committed by Mr. A. K. Patel during 1998 to 2003 and action taken thereon. The Public Information Officer informed respondent No.2 that the information with regard to complaints made against Mr. A. K. Patel and the action taken thereon could not be given as no specific and detail information of complaints for the aforesaid period was furnished, therefore, in absence of clear and detail information, same could not be provided. However, some information was provided to respondent No.2 upon payment of usual charges. Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Registrar General / First Appellate Authority under S.19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'RTI Act') giving a detailed description of the facts pertaining to his case. The First Appellate Authority by its order dated 12.8.2015 dismissed the first appeal referring to the provisions of S.8(1)(e) and (f) of the RTI Act and also relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others, 2013 (1) SCC 212 : AIR 2012 SC (supp) 690, holding that complaint made against judicial officers falls under the expression "personal information" and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or in public interest. It was also held that respondent No.2 was not able to establish that disclosure of the information sought was in larger interest and it was held that disclosure of information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual as defined under S.8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Respondent No.2 preferred second appeal before the State Information Commission, Raipur. The State Information Commission partly allowed the appeal and held that complaints made against Mr. A. K. Patel, Additional District Judge do not amount to personal information and therefore, respondent No.2 is entitled to copies of the complaints made against Mr. A. K. Patel during 1998 to 2003.

3. Mr. R. S. Marhas, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission is in teeth of S.8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

4. Mr. Shyam Tekchandani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, would support the impugned order.

5. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the State Information Commission has held that complaints made against Mr. A. K. Patel are not personal information of Mr. Patel, therefore, respondent No.2 is entitled for copies of those information and further held that since respondent No.2 has not pressed the second part of the information sought, it is not being considered and directed for supply of copies of complaints in relation of corruption / judicial irregularities committed by Mr. A. K. Patel during 1998