RTI applicability to CJI verdict: Judge advocates balance between RTI & Right to Privacy

In a landmark judgment on Wednesday, a 5-bench Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices BV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and Deepak Gupta held that the office of CJI comes under the definition of ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It upheld the 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court. While Justice Khanna authored the judgment for CJI Gogoi and Justice Gupta, Justices Ramana and Chandrachud have written their separate but concurring opinions. Though the majority opinion was that transparency does not undermine judicial independence, Justice Ramana had a slightly different take on the matter. This adds a caveat to the judgment as information could be potentially refused on certain grounds. 

Read: MASSIVE: SC Brings CJI's Office Under RTI, Upholds Delhi HC's 2010 Order

Read: Massive Thursday In Supreme Court: Verdicts On Sabarimala, Rafale Reviews

A balance between the right to information and privacy

Justice Ramana stated that there had to be a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy as well as confidentiality and independence of the judiciary. He observed that the RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. He directed the Information Commissioner to apply the test of proportionality while entertaining applications seeking information from the CJI’s office. Basically, Justice Ramana remarked that there is certain information that is inherently private such as age, gender, sex, sexual preferences. He said that the following non-exhaustive considerations needed to be examined while assessing the ‘public interest’ under Section 8 of the RTI Act:  

a. Nature and content of the information

b. Consequences of non-disclosure; dangers and benefits to public 

c. Type of confidential obligation 

d. Beliefs of the confidant; reasonable suspicion  

e. Party to whom information is disclosed  

f. Manner in which information acquired  

g. Public and private interests  

h. Freedom of expression and proportionality. 

Read: Criminal Neta Case: Five Directions Given By The Supreme Court To Ensure Transparency in Electoral System

Read: US: Supreme Court Set To Decide Fate Of 660,000 Immigrants Under DACA