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

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

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:

1. 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.
2. Supersession in elevations — Whether information on judges who were considered for elevation but were superseded must be disclosed.
3. 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 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. Supersession-related information can be disclosed unless privacy of the superseded judge is severely affected.
5. The matter remanded to the CPIO to apply the test afresh on each query.

“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.

The ruling remains good law and is the principal authority for any RTI to a court or tribunal. Following the judgment:

1. The Supreme Court website now publishes judges' financial disclosures voluntarily.
2. Collegium resolutions are routinely uploaded to the SC site since October 2017, and recent High Court Collegium recommendations are uploaded too.
3. 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.

• 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.

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).

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:

1. 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.”
2. §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 AI RTI Drafter to auto-insert these citation lines, or First Appeal Builder if you've been refused with a blanket §8(1)(j).

1. Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal Nos 10044-10045 of 2010, CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, dated 13 November 2019. Judgment PDF on sci.gov.in.
2. 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.
3. Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(h), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(j), 8(2), 11. Full text of the RTI Act.
4. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3) (deletes the §8(1)(j) proviso, in force 14 November 2025).
5. 1997 Full Court Resolution of the Supreme Court of India on judges' asset declaration (cited in the judgment).

• Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commission accountability
• Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) personal-information test
• AI RTI Drafter
• RTI case-law database — 300+ decisions
• RTI Act, 2005 — full text

Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.