The Hindu : National : “Disclosure of judges’ appointment information will violate fiduciary ties”

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 14, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

“Disclosure of judges’ appointment information will violate fiduciary ties”

J. Venkatesan

Court information to government is in the nature of third party personal opinion

NEW DELHI: The Union Law Ministry has rejected the plea of an applicant seeking information on appointment of judges to the Supreme Court.

Disclosure of such information will be in violation of fiduciary relationship as contemplated under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Right to Information Act, the Ministry said in its reply to rights activist Subash Chandra Agrawal.

In his application filed in January, he requested information on the correspondence between the then Law Minister and other constitutional authorities, together with file notings, on the appointment of Justices H.L. Dattu, A.K. Ganguly and R.M. Lodha. He alleged that they superseded the Chief Justices of three High Courts — Justices A.P. Shah, A.K. Patnaik and V.K. Gupta — despite an objection by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Consultative process

The then Chief Principal Information Officer (CPIO) at the Department of Justice in the Ministry of Law replied saying, “The appointment of judges in the Supreme Court is a consultative process in the light of the provisions of Section 11 (1) [third party information] and Section 8 (1) (e) [information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship].”

He said the type of information provided by the Supreme Court to equip the government to discharge its constitutionally ordained role of advising the President on who should be appointed judge was in the nature of personal opinion provided by the third party, and “therefore attracts Section 11 (1).”

“It further attracts examination under Section 8 (1) (e), as the information given by the Chief Justice of India is in trust and confidence. Disclosing any such information will be violative of a fiduciary relationship.”

On appeal from Mr. Agrawal, the First Appellate Authority said the CPIO should have followed the procedure prescribed in Section 11(1). He, however, said that since the matter relating to information on declaration of assets was pending in the Delhi High Court, the decision might be awaited.

Mr. Agrawal again approached the Law Ministry, which, by an October 6 communication, turned down the request, reiterating that “the records of such deliberations are secret in the nature of advice tendered by the Cabinet to the President” and disclosure would be in violation of the fiduciary relationship.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National