loader image

Delhi High Court Hears RTI Plea on Judicial Curruption & Misconduct Complaints Made in Past 10 Years

Delhi High Court Hears RTI Plea on Judicial Curruption & Misconduct Complaints Made in Past 10 Years

RTI Judicial Complaints Disclosure

The Delhi High Court on April 1st heard a plea seeking disclosure under the Right to Information Act regarding complaints of corruption and misconduct against judges, including details of action taken on such complaints.

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the RTI Act is meant to facilitate citizens’ right to know about the functioning of public authorities, relying on precedents such as Raj Narain and SP Gupta, which recognise transparency as a facet of fundamental rights. He contended that information relating to complaints against judges cannot be denied as “personal information,” as such allegations directly concern public interest.

He further submitted that while Parliament had been informed that over 8,000 complaints were received against judges in the last decade, the absence of disclosure on how these complaints were handled creates a misleading public perception.

“The correct way would have been to say… how many were frivolous and what action was taken.”

Mr Bhushan also argued that even if data is not maintained in a specific format, authorities are obligated under Section 4 of the RTI Act to organise records in a manner that facilitates access, or alternatively allow inspection.

Opposing the plea, the Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel Rukhmani Bobde submitted that the information sought is neither maintained in the manner requested nor capable of being collated without disproportionate diversion of resources. It was further argued that judge-specific complaints are protected under privacy exemptions and judicial independence considerations, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav asked both sides to suggest what mechanism or framework could be evolved for this matter.


Appearances

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan

Respondent- Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Amir Gupta, Mr. R V Prabhat, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman

CGSC Rukhmani Bobde