Every Indian citizen has the right to know how public institutions function. When it comes to the judiciary, transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust. This case highlights how the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be used to seek information about complaints against judges, even those at the highest levels of the Indian judiciary. Understanding this case can empower you to seek similar information and hold public authorities accountable.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant filed a request with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They wanted to know about any complaints received against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including the Chief Justice of India. The applicant also specifically requested copies of all related documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the CBI provided some information regarding the status of complaints against certain judges, stating that most were examined and closed due to a lack of substantial findings. However, for complaints against the then Chief Justice of India, the PIO indicated they had been forwarded to various CBI branches for action.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO was partial. While some information about the status of complaints was provided, the applicant felt that the PIO had not fully disclosed the details, particularly regarding the action taken on complaints forwarded to different branches. The applicant also believed they should have received copies of all relevant documents, not just a status update. This led to the matter being escalated.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant pressed for more details. They specifically wanted to know the ultimate action taken various CBI branches to which complaints against the then Chief Justice of India had been sent. The applicant reiterated their request for copies of all related documents. The PIO’s defense likely revolved around the scope of information available and potentially the exemptions under the RTI Act, though the specifics of their arguments are not detailed in the provided case summary. The appellant’s persistence was key in pushing for a more comprehensive disclosure.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC delivered a significant order that clarified the extent of information that could be provided. The Commission directed the PIO to provide photocopies of the file noting related to the examination of complaints against some judges and the decisions to close those complaints. This affirmed the applicant’s right to see the internal deliberations and decision-making process. More importantly, concerning the complaints against the then Chief Justice of India, the CIC gave two options to the PIO: either collect the information from the relevant branches and inform the appellant about the current status of those complaints, or transfer the RTI requests to the PIOs of those specific branches. In either case, the PIO was directed to provide the present status of the complaints along with photocopies of all relevant documents, including file noting and correspondence. This order emphasized that even sensitive information, when properly requested and when not falling under specific exemptions, must be disclosed, and that public authorities must actively facilitate the disclosure process, even if it involves inter-departmental coordination.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Persistent with Your Requests: If you don’t receive complete information, don’t give up. The CIC hearing is an opportunity to present your case and argue for fuller disclosure.
- Lesson 2: Understand What Constitutes “Information”: RTI includes not just final decisions but also the process, file notings, and correspondence. Clearly state that you want all related documents.
- Lesson 3: Public Authorities Must Facilitate Disclosure: Even if information is held departments, the original PIO has a responsibility to either collect it or transfer your request appropriately, as per Section 7(3) and Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency holds the information you seek (e.g., CBI for investigations).
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State precisely what information you want, including any supporting documents. Refer to the specific subject matter (e.g., complaints against judges).
- Submit Your Application: Pay the required fee and submit your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned authority.
- Follow Up and Appeal if Necessary: If the response is unsatisfactory or delayed (beyond 30 days as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act), file a First Appeal under Section 19(1). If still unsatisfied, you can approach the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a Second Appeal under Section 19(3).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide the status of any complaints received against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including the Chief Justice of India, that have been investigated or are currently under investigation department. Please also provide photocopies of all file notings, correspondence, and any other documents generated in relation to these complaints.
Conclusion
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the RTI Act is a tool for transparency and accountability, even in sensitive areas. your rights and following the correct procedures, you can access vital information about the functioning of public institutions. Remember to be specific in your requests, persistent in your pursuit, and willing to appeal if necessary. Your informed use of RTI contributes to a more transparent and democratic India.
