Subhash Agarwal v. CPIO, Supreme Court — Judges' Assets

The CIC held in January 2009 that whether Supreme Court and High Court judges had filed asset declarations under the 1997 Full Court resolution is “information” held by a public authority. The Office of the Chief Justice of India cannot invoke §8(1)(a) (national security) to deny access to administrative records.

This ruling opened the door for citizens to RTI the highest constitutional courts — and the Supreme Court itself eventually affirmed the principle in (2020) 5 SCC 481.

Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a journalist and RTI activist, filed an RTI application with the CPIO of the Supreme Court of India in 2007 asking for copies of asset declarations filed (or not filed) by sitting judges under the Full Court resolution of May 1997. The CPIO refused, citing inter alia the exemption under §8(1)(a) (information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect national security) and §8(1)(j) (personal information).

Agarwal appealed to the First Appellate Authority and, on continued refusal, filed a Second Appeal before the CIC. A Full Bench of three Information Commissioners heard the matter.

The CIC Full Bench directed the CPIO to disclose whether each judge had filed an asset declaration, holding: (1) the Office of the CJI is a “public authority” under §2(h) of the RTI Act; (2) an internal Full Court resolution cannot override the statutory transparency right; (3) the §8(1)(a) national-security exemption requires a proximate nexus to sovereignty, integrity, or security — it cannot be stretched to cover judicial administrative records. The matter of content of individual declarations was remanded on proportionality.

“The Right to Information Act, 2005 must be read as a beneficial legislation in favour of citizens. The exemptions under Section 8 are to be construed strictly and the burden of proving that the exemption applies lies on the public authority seeking to withhold information. We hold that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is bound to respond to RTI applications. The exemption under Section 8(1)(a) has no application to administrative records of the type sought in this case.”

— CIC Full Bench, File Nos. CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 & 00472, 6 January 2009

• If a constitutional body (Supreme Court, Election Commission, Comptroller & Auditor General) claims national-security exemption for administrative records, cite this ruling to show §8(1)(a) requires a direct nexus to security — not mere sensitivity.
• Quote the principle that “exemptions under §8 must be construed strictly and the burden of proof lies on the public authority.”
• Use this decision to push back on any PIO who reflexively invokes §8(1)(a) for court records, official communications, or committee minutes.
• In your second-appeal memorandum, cite the eventual Supreme Court affirmation: CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
• The ruling confirms that even constitutional courts are accountable under RTI — leverage this for High Court registry requests too.

• §8(1)(a) — National security exemption
• §2(h) — Definition of public authority
• §19 — Appeals procedure

Yes. The Supreme Court's registry has a designated CPIO. You can file an RTI application under §6(1) by post or via the RTI Online portal (rtionline.gov.in). The 2009 CIC ruling and the 2020 Supreme Court judgment both confirm the Supreme Court is a public authority.

In rare cases — for example, witness-protection orders or in-camera proceedings involving state security matters. But for ordinary administrative records like salary, asset declarations, or administrative correspondence, §8(1)(a) does not apply. The PIO must show a specific, proximate link to national security.

The Supreme Court's CPIO challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, which upheld it in 2010. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court (2010) directed disclosure. The matter went to the Supreme Court, which in its Constitution Bench ruling — (2020) 5 SCC 481 — broadly affirmed that the CJI's office is a public authority, while introducing a proportionality test for individual declarations.

Write: “I rely on the CIC Full Bench order in CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 (6 January 2009), affirmed by the Supreme Court in (2020) 5 SCC 481, holding that §8(1)(a) must be construed strictly and the burden lies on the public authority.” Use our First Appeal Builder to auto-draft this paragraph.

Verified source: indiankanoon.org · CIC file CIC/WB/A/2008/00426