DEHRADUN: In a potentially precedent-setting move for judicial transparency across India, the Uttarakhand State Information Commission has mandated disclosure of information related to complaints filed against subordinate judiciary officers and judges under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
This directive, passed under the chairmanship of Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi, marks the first instance in the country where such detailed complaint statistics related to the lower judiciary have been ordered to be made public.
The case stems from an appeal filed by IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
Chaturvedi sought comprehensive details concerning the rules governing the subordinate judiciary, including service and conduct rules, disciplinary procedures, and mechanisms for filing grievances against judicial officers for corruption or misconduct.
The original RTI application, filed by Chaturvedi on May 14, 2025, specifically sought details regarding the service and conduct rules applicable to the Uttarakhand subordinate judiciary, the established process for filing complaints against judicial officers, the total count of complaints lodged against subordinate judiciary members between January 1, 2020, and April 15, 2025, along with corresponding disciplinary or criminal actions recommended or implemented, and certified copies of file notings related to the RTI application process itself.
The Public Information Officer (PIO) from the Nainital High Court denied the complete disclosure, arguing that the requested information was "confidential in nature" and pertained to a "third party," requiring prior permission from the competent authority.
Dissatisfied with the response, Chaturvedi first filed a departmental appeal before the Uttarakhand High Court’s Registrar, before escalating the matter to the State Information Commission.
During the SIC hearing, both parties presented their arguments. Chaturvedi contended that the statistics regarding the number and disposal of complaints are vital for public interest and cannot be deemed confidential.
The PIO reiterated that the sensitivity surrounding judicial officers necessitated secrecy without explicit clearance.
In its ruling, the SIC asserted that merely citing confidentiality is insufficient grounds for denial.
The Commission acknowledged that information concerning the volume and process of handling complaints within the subordinate judiciary falls within the purview of transparency.
"Simply stating that the information is confidential cannot be an adequate basis for withholding it," the Commission observed, emphasizing that procedural transparency is paramount.
However, the SIC provided a crucial caveat: "The identity or name of any individual judge or officer shall not be disclosed."
The Commission has directed the PIO to seek necessary permission from the competent authority (Subordinate Courts) within one month to furnish the requested data pertaining to the number and process of complaints. Legal experts view this ruling as a significant stride toward enhancing accountability within the judicial administration system and setting a strong precedent for future RTI applicants seeking clarity on judicial oversight.