The Supreme Court has declared that the RTI Act cannot be used to question a judgment or the reasons behind a decision. The Division Bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India, observed that a judge was not required to furnish the reason for which he had given a particular judgment.
The decision comes on an appeal by 76-year old agriculturist Khanapuram Gandaiah of Andhra Pradesh, who alleged "judicial dishonesty" on the part of a District Court judge, M. Seetharama Murthy, who had ordered an injuction against Gandaiah on a property dispute in 2006.
Gandaiah was not questioning the judgement but merely asking for the reason behind the judgement and why parts of his submissions had not been considered. He had also sought an explanation from the judge for relying on "fabricated" documents to arrive at his decision.
The Supreme Court criticised Gandaiah for resorting to the RTI Act instead of seeking redressal from a higher court. The application had been made under Section 6 of the RTI Act for information possessed by a public authority. The RTI plea had been rejected by the District Court and the Supreme Court upheld the rejection, saying that a judge is not required to explain his decisions.
