Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2010 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 1104 - HC - Indian LawsWhether the respondent had any "right to information" under Section 2(j) of the Act in respect of the information regarding making of declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to 1997 Resolution? Whether CJI held the "information" in his "fiduciary" capacity, within the meaning of the expression used in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act ? Whether the information about the declaration of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act ? Held that:- The respondent had right to information under Section 2(j) of the Act in respect of the information regarding making of declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to the 1997 Resolution. Section 8(e) does not cover asset declarations made by Judges of the Supreme Court and held by the CJI. The CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship. In the present case the particulars sought for by the respondent do not justify or warrant protection under Section 8(1)(j) inasmuch as the only information the applicant sought was whether 1997 Resolution was complied with. That kind of innocuous information does not warrant the protection granted by Section 8(1)(j). We concur with the view of the learned single Judge that the contents of asset declarations, pursuant to the 1997 Resolution, are entitled to be treated as personal information, and may be accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 8(1)(j); that they are not otherwise subject to disclosure. Therefore, as regards contents of the declarations, information applicants would have to, whenever they approach the authorities, under the Act satisfy them under Section 8(1)(j) that such disclosure is warranted in "larger public interest". Though the Act generally prohibits obtaining or using a report for commercial purposes, it contains an exemption for "news and communication media" involved in "dissemination to the general public". Thus APB could not be refused access to the reports. Before the forms were released to the APB [APBnews.com], however, the Committee removed some personal information submitted by judges but not required by the Act, such as home addresses and names of spouses and dependants.
|