The Madras High Court has ruled that details about the Committee formed under the High Court's Party-in-Person Rules cannot be treated as secret information. Justice M. Dhandapani held that the Registry's refusal to share this information was based on a wrong reading of an earlier judgment, and directed the Court's administration to hand over most of the details sought by an RTI applicant.
Background of the Case
The dispute began when one Akbar Ahamed filed an RTI application on July 28, 2021, asking the Madras High Court for information about the Committee constituted under the High Court of Madras (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-Person) Rules, 2019. He wanted to know the names and designations of committee members, their experience, qualifications, achievements, area of expertise, conduct details, and pay scale. He also sought details about the powers and functions of the High Court's Administrative Committee.
The Public Information Officer turned down the request, relying on an earlier Division Bench ruling in a case involving one K. Elango, which had held that certain administrative information could be withheld under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The first appeal was also rejected on the same ground.
Ahamed then approached the Tamil Nadu Information Commission in second appeal. The Commission ruled in his favour on October 18, 2023, directing the High Court Registry to furnish the information and file a compliance report. The Registrar General, on behalf of the High Court, challenged this order before the High Court itself through a writ petition.
Arguments Before the Court
Senior counsel for the High Court argued that the information related to internal administration of the Registry and was exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act, pointing to the Elango case where the Division Bench had refused similar disclosure citing privacy and fiduciary relationship concerns.
Counsel for the Information Commission countered that the Elango ruling dealt with vigilance enquiries against judicial officers — a completely different context. He submitted that the present information did not touch upon any fiduciary relationship and was, in fact, the kind of information that could not be denied even to Parliament or a State Legislature under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j).
Court's Observations
Justice Dhandapani examined the Elango judgment closely and found it was not applicable here. The earlier ruling, the Court noted, concerned sensitive vigilance statistics and disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers — matters involving genuine confidentiality and fiduciary trust.
The present case, the judge observed, was different in nature. The constitution of the committee and the composition of its members was called an administrative act, not classified information, since only sitting Judges served on the committee and their names were already published on the High Court website.
On the qualification and experience details, the Court noted that the High Court's website already carries personal details of all Judges accessible to every citizen, and that such details are not held by the Registry in any fiduciary capacity.
Regarding salary details, the Court held that Judges' pay comes from the Consolidated Fund of India, and since it is paid from public funds, the public — including the applicant — cannot be barred from knowing it.
The Court did carve out one exception. It agreed that information about the "conduct" of committee members could not be shared, since such records simply weren't available with the Registry to begin with.
The bench observed that the Registry had misread the Elango precedent and wrongly applied it to deny an application that, in substance, involved no confidentiality or sensitive element at all.
Decision
Rejecting the High Court Registry's challenge, Justice M. Dhandapani held that the earlier Division Bench ruling had been incorrectly applied because the present request did not involve sensitive, personal or fiduciary information protected under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to furnish all the requested information, except the conduct details of committee members, within two weeks from receipt of the order.
