The court ruled that internal administrative documents are not disclosable under the RTI Act to protect judicial confidentiality.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Arvind Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. Karthik Ranganathan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan,J.)

Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to furnish a copy of the report received from the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam and the explanation received from the Judicial Officer concerned with respect to the complaint dated 13.11.2021 lodged by petitioner and the copy of the order passed thereon.

2. According to petitioner, he had filed a complaint against the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mayiladuthurai, alleging inaction and delay in disposing of criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.202 of 2016. He would further state in the complaint that because of the delay, accused had died and, therefore, justice was denied to him.

3. On his complaint, the Registry had sought remarks from the learned Principal District Judge and explanation from the Judicial Officer concerned. Registry had circulated the file to the Portfolio Judges (Judges of this Court, who were in-charge of the District). Based on the observations/notings of the Portfolio Judges made after considering the report of the Principal District Judge and the explanation offered by the Judicial Officer concerned, the Registry had communicated to the petitioner herein that further action was directed to be dropped.

4. Petitioner thereafter sought documents, namely, (i) report received from the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam; and (ii) the explanation received from the Judicial Officer concerned.

5. The Registry, by order dated 29.11.2023, declined to furnish those documents sought by petitioner relying upon a judgment of this court in the case of The Registrar General of High Court, Madras v K.Elango¹

6. Mr.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the judgment in K.Elango 's case (supra) would not be applicable to the

1 2013 (2) CWC 56 (DB)

facts of this case, as the information sought in K.Elango 's case (supra) was general information and documents related thereto, whereas in this case specific information with regard to the disposal of his complaint was sought.

7. Per contra, Mr.Karthik, learned counsel for respondents, submitted that the information sought pertains to administrative decisions, internal discussions and notings in the files and, therefore, it cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 2 (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 .

8. Though the information sought in the case of K.Elango (supra)

was general in nature, the observations in the judgment make it clear that administrative decisions, internal discussions, deliberations and file notings cannot be shared or brought under Section 2 (j) of the Act. In the judgment it is further stated that the secrecy and privacy of the internal working process of the High Court on the administrative side would be jeopardised, if documents such as those sought by petitioners are furnished, besides resulting in invasion of privacy of the individuals concerned. Paragraphs 59 to 61 of the said judgment read as under:

“59. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions and on going through the contents of the application dated 01.11.2010 filed by the 1^st Respondent/Applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the information sought for by him in Serial Nos. 1 to 9 pertaining to the internal delicate functioning/ administration of the High Court besides the same relate to invasion of privacy of respective individuals if the informations so asked for are furnished and more so, the informations sought for