Table of Contents
Secretary General SC v. Subhash Agarwal (2010)
Quick Reply: The Delhi High Court's Full Bench (A.P. Shah CJ, Vikramajit Sen and S. Muralidhar JJ, 12 January 2010) held the CJI's office a public authority under §2(h), and judges' voluntary asset declarations disclosable subject to §8(1)(j) balancing. The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench affirmed the core in November 2019. The decision that opened the judiciary's door — after a five-year fight by one persistent citizen.
High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) · 2010-01-12 · AIR 2010 Delhi 159, (2010) 166 DLT 305 · ★ Landmark
Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI [affirmed by SC 2019]. CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets.
CJI's office is a public authority; judges' assets accessible subject to §8(1)(j) balancing.
Case details
| Court | High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2010-01-12 |
| Citation | AIR 2010 Delhi 159, (2010) 166 DLT 305 |
| Bench | A.P. Shah, Vikramajit Sen, S. Muralidhar |
| Petitioner | Secretary General, Supreme Court of India |
| Respondent | Subhash Chandra Agarwal |
| RTI Act sections | §2(h), §8(1)(j) |
| Outcome | Allowed. The registry's appeal was dismissed and disclosure upheld |
Outcome
Office of the CJI is a 'public authority'; judges' asset declarations subject to RTI (affirmed by SC 2019).
Reading the decision
- What was sought: Subhash Chandra Agarwal asked whether judges had filed their asset declarations with the CJI, as the 1997 code of conduct required — not the declarations' contents themselves.
- What was held: the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under §2(h); the existence of the declarations is information; the declarations themselves are disclosable subject to §8(1)(j) balancing (privacy of a judge as an individual vs. public interest in judicial accountability).
- What happened next: the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench (November 2019) affirmed — CJI's office is a public authority; the transparency-vs-privacy balance sent back for ordinary-course adjudication. See the linked 2019 ruling below.
Why this case still matters
- It fixed the framing: ask about compliance facts (has the declaration been filed, when, with whom) before asking for contents — the first ask is almost unanswerable with a refusal.
- The §8(1)(j) balancing language became the template for every judges'-assets and collegium request since.
- A lesson in persistence: the applicant's requests ran through 2007-2009 and several appeals before this Full Bench ruled.
Ratio decidendi
The office of the Chief Justice of India is a 'public authority' under §2(h). Voluntary asset declarations made by judges to the CJI are disclosable under RTI subject to §8(1)(j) balancing. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2019.
Keywords
CJI, judges' assets, Delhi HC Full Bench, §2(h), §8(1)(j)
Later rulings that cite this case
Similar cases in the corpus
- Judges' salary / allowances — CIC (CIC 2019)
- Public Servants' Assets Disclosure — Madras HC 2024 (HC-MAD 2024)
- Subordinate-court judge transfers — CIC (CIC 2018)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · expanded 27 August 2026; junk description rebuilt; framing guidance added.