SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VERSUS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VERSUS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL , CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044 OF 2010 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Concurring J U D G M E N T by N.V. RAMANA, J
9. The case involves three appeals which arose from separate orders denying access to information under the RTI Act. Through the first of the appeals, respondent sought the complete correspondence of the Chief Justice of India regarding an alleged attempt to influence a judicial decision. The second appeal involved an RTI application request to furnish a copy of documents available with the Supreme Court. This included a correspondence between the relevant constitutional authorities relating to the appointment of various Supreme Court judges. The third appeal involved an RTI application seeking information on a declaration made by judges to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices in the States regarding the assets held by them, their spouses or any person dependent on them.
2. DECISION OVERVIEW
FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
10. To understand the meaning of fiduciary relationship under section 8(1)(e), the Court referred to Aditya Bandopadhyay case. The court in the case had observed that the expression is used in its normal and well-recognised sense, that is, to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary. [p. 41] The Court concluded that the exemption under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act does not apply to beneficiaries regarding whom the fiduciary holds information.
11. Thereafter, the Court referred to the RBI case, in which the court highlighted four principles required to classify a relationship as a fiduciary relationship. These are: (1) no conflict rule; (2) no profit rule; (3) undivided loyalty rule, and; (4) duty of confidentiality. The court observed that the fiduciary relationship casts positive obligations on the fiduciary and requires it to protect the interests of the beneficiary. Accordingly, obligations of the fiduciary are stricter than non-fiduciary relationships and the judicial scrutiny is higher.
12. The Court held that the relationship between the Chief Justice and judges is not generally that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary. However, it is not an absolute rule as in certain situations and acts, a fiduciary relationship may arise. Whether or not such a relationship arises in a particular situation would have to be dealt with based on the tests and parameters expressed above.
MEANING OF PUBLIC INTEREST
13. The Court observed that the public interest test often applied in the right to information legislation to balance right to access and protection of the conflicting right to deny access. Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 also require balancing of competing public interests. The Court noted that the test prescribed in Section 8(1)(j) is broader than the one in Section 11, as the latter requires comparison between disclosure of information relating to a third person or information supplied and treated as confidential by the third party and possible harm or injury to the third party on disclosure, which would include all kinds of possible harm and injury to the third party on disclosure.
14. For the purpose of understanding public interest in the context of the RTI Act, the Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment (Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Another, (2012) 13 SCC 61) for it to mean the general welfare of the public warranting the disclosure and the protection applicable, in which the public as a whole has a stake. Differentiating between information in public interest and information which is of interest to the public, the Court held that the public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to particular information and the person.
15. The Court also observed that the Act does not specify factors which should be taken into consideration for determining public interest. To determine these factors, the Court referred to an article published in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal (Freedom of Information and the Public Interest: the Commonwealth experience). The article determined that there are certain factors which weigh in favor of disclosure (accountability of officials, openness in the expenditure of public funds, the performance by a public authority of its regulatory functions, public health and safety, etc.), some against (the likelihood of damage to security or international relations, the likelihood of damage to the integrity or viability of decision-making processes, etc.), and lastly those which are irrelevant (the information might be misunderstood, embarrassing, that the requested information is overly technical in nature, etc.).
16. The last aspect in the public interest test which the Court suggested may factor in is the motive and purpose for making the request for information. In the words of the Court:
Clearly, motive and purpose for making the request for information is irrelevant, and being extraneous cannot be a ground for refusing the information. However, this is not to state that motive and purpose may not be relevant factor while applying the public interest test in case of qualified exemptions governed by the public interest test Similarly, in other cases, public interest may weigh in favour of the disclosure when the information sought may be of special interest or special significance to the applicant. It could equally be a negative factor when the motive and purpose is vexatious or it is a case of clear abuse of law. [p. 79]
NEED FOR REASONED ORDER
17. When rendering a decision, the Public Information Officers must clearly state their reasoning. Accordingly, the Court held:
The delicate balance requires identification of public interest behind each exemption and then cumulatively weighing the public interest in accepting or maintaining the exemption(s) to deny information in a particular case against the public interest in disclosure in that particular case. Further, under Section 11(1), reference is made to the possible harm and injury to the third party which will also have to be factored in when determining disclosure of confidential information relating to the third parties. [p. 78]
Before we dwell into any other aspect a preliminary objections
were taken by the appellants that this Bench could not have dealt
with this matter considering the fact that this Courts
functionality had a direct impact on the same. We do not
subscribe to the aforesaid opinion for the reason that this Court
while hearing this matter is sitting as a Court of necessity. In the
case of Election Commission of India v. Dr Subramaniam
Swamy, (1996) 4 SCC 104, it was held as under:
16. We must have a clear conception of the
doctrine. It is well settled that the law permits
certain things to be done as a matter of
necessity which it would otherwise not
countenance on the touchstone of judicial
propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of
necessity makes it imperative for the authority
to decide and considerations of judicial
propriety must yield. It is often invoked in
cases of bias where there is no other authority
or Judge to decide the issue. If the doctrine of
necessity is not allowed full play in certain
unavoidable situations, it would impede the
course of justice itself and the defaulting party
would benefit there from. Take the case of a
certain taxing statute which taxes certain
perquisites allowed to Judges. If the validity of
such a provision is challenged who but the
members of the judiciary must decide it. If all
the Judges are disqualified on the plea that
striking down of such a legislation would
benefit them, a stalemate situation may
develop. In such cases the doctrine of necessity
comes into play. If the choice is between
7
allowing a biased person to act or to stifle the
action altogether, the choice must fall in favour
of the former as it is the only way to promote
decision-making. In the present case also if the
two Election Commissioners are able to reach
a unanimous decision, there is no need for the
Chief Election Commissioner to participate, if
not the doctrine of necessity may have to be
invoked.
10. In this light, appellants have to accept the decision of this Court
which is the final arbiter of any disputes in India and also the
highest court of constitutional matters. In this light, such
objections cannot be sustained.