No judge-specific information on corruption, misconduct allegations: Supreme Court to Delhi High Court

The Supreme Court of India told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that it does not maintain judge-specific information about allegations of corruption or misconduct. 

Advocate Rukhmini Bobde appeared for the public information officer of the Supreme Court and stated that even collating such information may not be possible, as it would involve diverting significant resources. 

The lawyer made the submission before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav during the hearing of a plea filed by journalist Saurav Das challenging denial of information under the RTI Act about whether any complaints of corruption or improper conduct were received with respect to Justice T Raja during his tenure as a Madras High Court judge. 

Bobde added that such information may also be protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). 

“Specifically, about corruption and misconduct, we don’t maintain of any judge. So, this is now a fishing and roving inquiry and we cannot divert our resources to collate this information for him,” Bobde said.  

She argued that even if it was possible for the Supreme Court to maintain such information, the top court is obliged to provide it under the RTI Act since it relates to specific individuals, against whom all kinds of complaints are made.

“Inputs are quite different from the decision itself…So, the Collegium decision is one thing. But the complaints they [Collegium] received - whatever supporting documents they have received in favour of that decision - that is not subject to public scrutiny whatsoever,” Bobde underscored. 

She added that the Supreme Court had provided details about the total number of complaints received in the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the last ten years to parliament because the total data is available.

Das had asked the Supreme Court to provide the number of complaints received and action taken in respect of those complaints. The Supreme Court's central public information officer (CPIO) responded to Das’ RTI application stating that no such information is maintained. 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for Das and argued that the information he is seeking cannot be said to be personal, because it involves public interest. 

“If there are complaints regarding corruption and misconduct against a judge, clearly they have a bearing on public activity or public interest. And, therefore, it cannot be denied on the ground that this is personal information,” Bhushan said. 

He argued that the Supreme Court gave certain information to the government, which was furnished to parliament. This contained the total number of complaints received in the office of the CJI against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. 

However, Bobde said that the information was not about the type of complaints received, but only the total number of complaints received in the office of the CJI. 

Bhushan said that while he agrees that many of the complaints against judges may be frivolous, the office of the CJI is obligated to deal with those complaints. After examination, the CJI's office can say that the allegations are frivolous, he added.

After hearing the case for some time, the Court adjourned the matter to next month. 

It also asked both sides to suggest a mechanism to ensure that the reputation of honest judges is protected and at the same time, the public knows how the complaints against judges are handled.