CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
Yes. A five-judge Constitution Bench held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the RTI Act. Sensitive records are still tested case-by-case against the Act's exemptions and a public-interest balance.
Issue before the court
Is the office of the Chief Justice of India a 'public authority' under the RTI Act, and can sensitive records such as judges' asset declarations and collegium correspondence be disclosed?
Facts in brief
An RTI applicant sought information on judges' asset declarations and collegium matters from the Supreme Court. The CPIO resisted, contending the CJI's office was distinct and that disclosure would undermine judicial independence.
Holding / decision
The office of the CJI is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h); the Supreme Court and the CJI are not separate authorities. Judicial independence and transparency are not in conflict. Whether a particular sensitive record is disclosed must be decided case-by-case, weighing competing public interests under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(2), with the third-party procedure under Section 11 where relevant.
Public authorities cannot claim a blanket exemption — each denial must fit a specific exemption in the Act and survive a public-interest balancing test.
High constitutional offices are not outside RTI. A refusal must point to a precise exemption and justify it; 'the body is too important or sensitive' is not, by itself, a valid ground.
What RTI can help you get
- Confirmation that the CJI's office and the Supreme Court fall under the RTI Act
- Information from constitutional and high public offices, subject to exemptions
- Disclosure where a larger public interest outweighs protected interests under Section 8(2)
What RTI may not give you
- Automatic disclosure of every sensitive record
- Information validly exempt under Section 8
- Disclosure that bypasses the third-party procedure under Section 11
- Personal information with no public-interest justification
When to cite this case
Denials based on vague 'confidentiality' or institutional sensitivity without a specific exemption; invoking the public-interest override under Section 8(2).
Later developments / current status
The decision settled that the CJI's office is covered by the RTI Act. Its application to specific categories of information continues to be worked out case-by-case by the CIC and the courts.
Source & verification
Related FileMyRTI services
Use FindMyPIO to identify the correct PIO and appellate authority, and the Deadline Clock to track your appeal timeline.
Login / Sign up
Login With Google
Continue as GuestOr use your email Address
*We value your trust. Your information remains private and protected with FileMyRTI