Salaries of High Court judges cannot be disclosed under RTI Act: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court recently held that the information regarding the salaries and allowances of High Court judges cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) as they hold Constitutional posts [High Court of Gujarat vs Chandravadan Dhruv]..Justice Biren Vaishnav ruled that a judge would not fall under the category of officers and employees who are liable to disclose their monthly remuneration under Section 4 (1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act. "Apparently, the position of a Judge of the High Court is a constitutional post which could not fall within the parameters of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act which deals with monthly remuneration of officers and employees. The finding of the Commission, therefore, that the Information Officer needed to be supplied is patently bad (sic)", the Court said.Therefore, the Court quashed an order of the State Information Commission (SIC), which had ordered an Information Officer to furnish information regarding the salary and allowances paid to a former judge of the High Court. .The Court was hearing a plea challenging the order of the SIC dated August 11, 2017, which had allowed a plea by one Chandravadan Dhruv seeking information regarding the appointment, salary and allowances given to Justice Sugnaben Bhatt. The Information Officer had initially refused to furnish this information, stating that it was personal information that had no relationship with any public activity. The said order was challenged twice by the RTI applicant. In the second appeal, the Gujarat Information Commission ruled in favour of disclosing the information sought on the pay and allowances given to Justice Bhatt. This SIC order, in turn, was challenged by the High Court on its administrative side.Advocate Trusha Patel appeared for the High Court administration and argued that the pay and allowances of High Court Judges cannot be branded as being that of officers and employees under Section 4 of the RTI Act. None represented the respondents, Dhruv (RTI applicant) and the SIC. .The Court, therefore, quashed and set aside the SIC order in question, to the extent it had directed the High Court to provide the information relating to the salary and allowances paid to Justice Bhatt. .[Read Order]