2010 (1) TMI 1284 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the dismissal of the petitioner's application and successive appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding a judicial officer's decision, and the interpretation of the RTI Act in relation to seeking reasons for judicial decisions.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Dismissal of petitioner's application under RTI Act
The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the RTI Act seeking information on a judicial officer's decision. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the information sought cannot be asked for under the RTI Act and that judicial officers are protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850. The petitioner argued that the right to information is a fundamental right and that the application was maintainable. However, the Court held that a judge is not bound to explain the reasons for a decision beyond what is stated in the judgment or order. Seeking information on judicial decisions through the RTI Act is not permissible, as it could affect the independence of the judiciary.

Issue 2: Interpretation of RTI Act in relation to judicial decisions
The Court clarified that under the RTI Act, an applicant can only access information that is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under the law. While an applicant can obtain copies of opinions, advices, circulars, and orders, they cannot inquire about the reasons behind judicial decisions. Judges are not required to provide additional reasons beyond those stated in their judgments. The application filed by the petitioner was deemed illegal and unwarranted, as seeking reasons for a judge's decision through the RTI Act goes against the principles of judicial independence and protection.

Conclusion:
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as the petitioner's application was considered a misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act. The High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition was upheld, emphasizing the importance of preserving the independence of the judiciary and the protection afforded to judicial officers.