The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that information relating to the job certificates of judicial officers, complaints made against them, and details of departmental or other inquiries against them is not liable to be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 [High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Mishra & Anr.]

Justice Sachin Singh Rajput made the observation while setting aside directives issued by the State Information Commission (SIC) to disclose such information pertaining to three judicial officers. A private individual had sought this information under the RTI Act.

The Court ruled that such information is part of the judicial officers' service records and would constitute "personal information" under Section 8 of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which has no connection with any larger public interest.

"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," it said.

The Court opined that such information appears to have been sought only for the RTI applicant's personal use, which cannot be permitted.

"The information sought pertains to judicial officers of the State of Chhattisgarh which have been kept safely and confidentially by their employer (High Court administration) and 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," it said.

The RTI applicant had filed his RTI application in 2017, seeking details of complaints received against three judicial officers in the State, enquiries made against them and the certificates they submitted to secure their jobs.

In 2019, the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (SIC) directed the disclosure of such information.

This was challenged in writ petitions filed by the High Court's administrative side, through its Registrar General and Public Information Officers. On January 14, the High Court passed a common order allowing these petitions.

Notably, the Court rejected certain arguments made by the petitioners (High Court administration) regarding whether a second appeal under the RTI Act could be decided by a single State Information Commissioner or must be examined by a coram of several members, since the law envisages a multi-member commission.

The petitioners argued that the SIC order could not have been passed by a single member.

The Court disagreed, holding that individual Information Commissioners are empowered to hear and decide appeals, and that the RTI Act allows for an internal allocation of work among its members.

"Each member of the State Information Commission and the Central Information Commission is equally competent to decide the issue involved on its own merits and there is no question of the Commissioner alone usurping the jurisdiction of the Commission and passing the order in his individual capacity, as argued by the counsel for the petitioners ... The broad language of the RTI Act indicates an intention to grant the CIC comprehensive authority to ensure the effective and efficient functioning of the commission," the Court said.

The Court also rejected an argument that the SIC had essentially allowed the conduct of a 'roving enquiry' against judicial officers.

"The State Information Commission has nowhere asked the petitioners in this case to create the information and then to provide the same to the applicant. Rather, being the repository of the record pertaining to the judicial officers, the information sought for can well be said to exist and accessible to the public authority as is provided under Section 6 of the RTI Act," it said.

The Court, however, eventually disagreed with the SIC on whether such information can be disclosed.

It noted that the information sought would also fall under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which protects information held in a fiduciary relationship from being publicly disclosed.

It held that complaints, certificates, and inquiry records submitted by judicial officers are held by the High Court in this fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed unless a clear public interest is shown.

The High Court found that the RTI applicant had not shown any overriding public interest. It, therefore, set aside the SIC's orders for the disclosure of such information.

Advocates Amrito Das, Abhijeet Mishra and Yashraj Verma appeared for the petitioners (High Court administration)

The Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (CSIC) was represented by advocate Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani.

[Read Order]