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 1.    FACTS
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]
13. Article 124 of the Constitution, which relates to the establishment
and constitution of the Supreme Court of India, states that there
shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice
and other judges. It is undebatable that the Supreme Court of
India is a public authority, as defined vide clause (h) to Section 2
of the RTI Act as it has been established and constituted by or
under the Constitution of India. The Chief Justice of India as per
sub-clause (ii) in clause (e) to Section 2 is the competent authority
in the case of the Supreme Court. Consequently, in terms of
Section 28 of the RTI Act, the Chief Justice of India is empowered
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 18 of 108
to frame rules, which have to be notified in the Official Gazette, to
carry out the provisions of the RTI Act.
14. The Supreme Court of India, which is a public authority, would
necessarily include the office of the Chief Justice of India and the
judges in view of Article 124 of the Constitution. The office of the
Chief Justice or for that matter the judges is not separate from the
Supreme Court, and is part and parcel of the Supreme Court as a
body, authority and institution. The Chief Justice and the Supreme
Court are not two distinct and separate public authorities, albeit
the latter is a public authority and the Chief Justice and the
judges together form and constitute the public authority, that is,
the Supreme Court of India. The interpretation to Section 2(h)
cannot be made in derogation of the Constitution. To hold to the
contrary would imply that the Chief Justice of India and the
Supreme Court of India are two distinct and separate public
authorities, and each would have their CPIOs and in terms of subsection (3) to Section 6 of the RTI Act an application made to the
CPIO of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice would have to be
transferred to the other when information is held or the subject
matter is more closely connected with the functions of the other.
This would lead to anomalies and difficulties as the institution,
authority or body is one. The Chief Justice of India is the head of
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 19 of 108
the institution and neither he nor his office is a separate public
authority.
15. This is equally true and would apply to the High Courts in the
country as Article 214 states that there shall be a High Court for
each State and Article 216 states that every High Court shall
consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President
of India may from time to time deem it appropriate to appoint