Right to Information Wiki
CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — RTI applies to office of CJI

2019 Constitution Bench: Office of the CJI is a public authority under RTI. Judges' assets + collegium files are subject to RTI with §8(1)(j) public-interest balance.

no way to compare when less than two revisions

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal [2026/05/05 03:00] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Agarwal — RTI applies to office of CJI ======
 +
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(CPIO Supreme Court Subhash Agarwal,office of CJI public authority,judges assets RTI,collegium RTI,Section 8(1)(j) judiciary,Constitution Bench RTI 2019,judicial accountability)
 +metatag-description=(2019 Constitution Bench: Office of the CJI is a public authority under RTI. Judges' assets + collegium files are subject to RTI with §8(1)(j) public-interest balance.)}}
 +
 +**The 2019 Constitution Bench ruling that ended a decade of doubt: the Office of the Chief Justice of India IS a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Judges' assets, collegium recommendations and judicial postings are not automatically off-limits — they must pass a public-interest balance test.**
 +
 +**Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal**
 +{{tag>constitution-bench supreme-court office-of-cji collegium judges-assets section-8-1-j section-11}}{{like>}}
 +
 +===== The issue before the Court =====
 +
 +Three appeals filed by the **Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India** against three CIC orders that had sided with **Subhash Chandra Agarwal**, an RTI activist:
 +
 +  - **Disclosure of judges' assets** — Whether the **Office of the CJI** must disclose the asset declarations submitted by Supreme Court judges as required by the **1997 Full Court Resolution**.
 +  - **Supersession in elevations** — Whether information on judges who were considered for elevation but were superseded must be disclosed.
 +  - **Identity of a judge accused of influencing collegium** — Whether the name of a Madras High Court judge (a "particular sitting judge") who allegedly influenced a collegium recommendation must be disclosed.
 +
 +The threshold question for all three: **is the office of the CJI a "public authority" under §2(h) of the RTI Act**?
 +
 +===== The Constitution Bench =====
 +
 +The matter was heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench:
 +
 +  * **CJI Ranjan Gogoi** (presiding, with majority opinion authored by Justice Khanna on his behalf)
 +  * **Justice N V Ramana** (joined the majority)
 +  * **Justice Sanjiv Khanna** (wrote the lead majority opinion)
 +  * **Justice D Y Chandrachud** (concurring with separate opinion)
 +  * **Justice Deepak Gupta** (concurring with separate opinion)
 +
 +The judgment was delivered on **13 November 2019**, in the last week of CJI Gogoi's tenure.
 +
 +===== The holdings =====
 +
 +  - **Office of the CJI is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act.** The Supreme Court of India is not a single monolith — the **Office of the Registrar General**, the **Office of the CPIO** and the **Office of the CJI** are distinct, but each falls within "public authority" because they are constituted by the Constitution and discharge public functions. The Delhi High Court 2010 ruling under appeal is **upheld**.
 +  - **Judges' assets are "personal information" under §8(1)(j)**, but the exemption is **not absolute**. The CPIO must apply the **public-interest balance test** in the proviso to §8(1)(j). Asset declarations are submitted in trust to the office of the CJI; the citizen-public-interest test must be applied case by case.
 +  - **Collegium files (correspondence, recommendation notes, dissents) are amenable to RTI**, but with the **§11 third-party consultation procedure** triggered where the disclosure may affect the privacy of a judge or candidate. Confidential intelligence inputs from RAW / IB about judges may attract §8(1)(g) (information whose disclosure would endanger the source / process).
 +  - **Supersession-related information** can be disclosed unless privacy of the superseded judge is severely affected.
 +  - **The matter remanded** to the CPIO to apply the test afresh on each query.
 +
 +===== Justice Chandrachud's concurring opinion — the strongest passage =====
 +
 +> "**Independence of the judiciary and the Right to Information are not in opposition. They are mutually reinforcing.** Judicial accountability is a key pillar of judicial independence. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on transparency in its functioning, including in the appointment process. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a charter of accountability and the institution of the judiciary cannot, by definition, be exempt from it." — Justice D Y Chandrachud, paragraph 110.
 +
 +This passage is now routinely cited in RTI matters concerning courts, tribunals, statutory bodies and other constitutional offices.
 +
 +===== Status as of May 2026 =====
 +
 +The ruling remains good law and is the principal authority for any RTI to a court or tribunal. Following the judgment:
 +
 +  - The **Supreme Court website now publishes** judges' financial disclosures voluntarily.
 +  - **Collegium resolutions are routinely uploaded to the SC site** since October 2017, and recent High Court Collegium recommendations are uploaded too.
 +  - The **DPDP Act 2023** (in force 14 November 2025) deletes the proviso to §8(1)(j) and shifts the public-interest balance to §8(2). The substantive Subhash Agarwal test on what counts as "personal information" of judges is unaffected; only the locus of the public-interest test has moved within the same statute.
 +
 +===== Sections engaged =====
 +
 +  * **Section 2(h)** — Public authority definition.
 +  * **Section 8(1)(j)** — Personal-information exemption (proviso removed by DPDP 2023).
 +  * **Section 8(1)(g)** — Information that would endanger the source.
 +  * **Section 8(2)** — Public-interest override (post-DPDP, applies sitewide).
 +  * **Section 11** — Third-party consultation procedure.
 +
 +===== Citation =====
 +
 +**Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal**, **(2020) 5 SCC 481**, Civil Appeal Nos 10044-10045 of 2010 (with Civil Appeal No 2683 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No 10045 of 2010), decided **13 November 2019** by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. Bench: **CJI Ranjan Gogoi**, **N V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, D Y Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta JJ** (Justice Khanna writing for the bench; Justice Chandrachud concurring; Justice Gupta concurring).
 +
 +===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
 +
 +If you want information from any **High Court, Supreme Court, tribunal, NHRC, CIC, SIC, ECI** — any constitutional office — this case is the foundation. Two clauses to weave into your RTI letter:
 +
 +  - **Citation hook**: "*The Office of the CJI is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, as held by the Constitution Bench in CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481*. The same reasoning applies a fortiori to this office."
 +  - **§8(1)(j) override hook**: "*Where any portion is held to attract personal-information exemption under Section 8(1)(j), I respectfully invoke the public-interest test under Section 8(2) read with the principle in CPIO Supreme Court (supra), paragraphs 88-92, requiring case-by-case balancing.*"
 +
 +Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html|AI RTI Drafter]] to auto-insert these citation lines, or [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html|First Appeal Builder]] if you've been refused with a blanket §8(1)(j).
 +
 +===== Sources =====
 +
 +  - Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal Nos 10044-10045 of 2010, **CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal**, dated 13 November 2019. [[https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/2683/2683_2010_Judgement_13-Nov-2019.pdf|Judgment PDF on sci.gov.in]].
 +  - Delhi High Court order under appeal: **Secretary General, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal**, 2009 (162) DLT 135 (DB) — Delhi High Court Full Bench, 12 January 2010.
 +  - **Right to Information Act, 2005**, Sections 2(h), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 8(2), 11. [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act|Full text of the RTI Act]].
 +  - **Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023**, Section 44(3) (deletes the §8(1)(j) proviso, in force 14 November 2025).
 +  - **1997 Full Court Resolution** of the Supreme Court of India on judges' asset declaration (cited in the judgment).
 +
 +===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
 +
 +  * [[:important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india|Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commission accountability]]
 +  * [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html|AI RTI Drafter]]
 +  * [[:cases|RTI case-law database — 300+ decisions]]
 +  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
 +
 +//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
 +
 +{{tag>supreme-court constitution-bench rti-case-law office-of-cji judges-assets collegium section-2-h section-8-1-j section-11 chandrachud subhash-agarwal 2019 judicial-accountability}}