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]
INFORMATION AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION
UNDER THE RTI ACT
16. Terms information, record and right to information have been
defined under clauses (f), (i) and (j) to Section 2 of the RTI Act
which are reproduced below:
(f) information means any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, e-mails,
opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders,
logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models,
data material held in any electronic form and
information relating to any private body which can be
accessed by a public authority under any other law for
the time being in force;
xx xx xx
(i) record includes
(a) any document, manuscript and file;
(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a
document;
(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in
such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 20 of 108
(d) any other material produced by a computer or any
other device;
(j) right to information means the right to information
accessible under this Act which is held by or under the
control of any public authority and includes the right to
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of
documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes,
floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other
electronic mode or through printouts where such
information is stored in a computer or in any other
device;
17. Information as per the definition clause is broad and wide, as it is
defined to mean material in any form with amplifying words
including records (a term again defined in widest terms vide
clause (i) to Section 2 of the RTI Act), documents, emails, memos,
advices, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models,
data material held in electronic form, etc. The last portion of the
definition clause which states that the term information would
include information relating to any private body which can be
accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time
being in force has to be read as reference to information not
presently available or held by the public authority but which can be
accessed by the public authority from a private body under any
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 21 of 108
other law for the time being in force. The term private body in
the clause has been used to distinguish and is in contradistinction
to the term public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI
Act. It follows that any requirement in the nature of precondition
and restrictions prescribed by any other law would continue to
apply and are to be satisfied before information can be accessed
and asked to be furnished by a private body.
18. What is explicit as well as implicit from the definition of
information in clause (f) to Section 2 follows and gets affirmation
from the definition of right to information that the information
should be accessible by the public authority and held by or under
the control of any public authority. The word hold as defined in
Whartons Law Lexicon, 15th Edition, means to have the
ownership or use of; keep as ones own, but in the context of the
present legislation, we would prefer to adopt a broader definition
of the word hold in Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, as
meaning; to keep, to retain, to maintain possession of or authority
over. The words under the control of any public authority as per
their natural meaning would mean the right and power of the
public authority to get access to the information. It refers to
dominion over the information or the right to any material,
document etc. The words under the control of any public
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 & Ors. Page 22 of 108
authority would include within their ambit and scope information
relating to a private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in force subject to
the pre-imposed conditions and restrictions as applicable to
access the information.