Bar
& Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, 23 December 2014.
The Delhi
High Court on Friday held that information regarding the reimbursement of
Supreme Court Judges’ medical bills need not be disclosed under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. The single-Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru set aside
a 2012 Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing that records of
such bills of judges of the Supreme Court (whether serving or retired) should
be maintained separately for each judge.
In 2010,
Subhash Chandra Agarwal had filed an application under the RTI Act seeking
details of medical facilities availed by individual judges in the last three
years. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) rejected the application
on the grounds that it was personal information exempt from disclosure under
Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. An appeal was preferred to the First Appellate
Authority, which was also rejected. Later, the CIC directed the CPIO to
disclose the requested information.
The CPIO
provided the total amount reimbursed on medical treatment from the budget grant
for three years in respect of Judges and employees of the Supreme Court and
submitted that Judge-wise information was not maintained as the same was not
required to be maintained. Dissatisfied with the information provided, the
applicant appealed to the CIC, which passed its 2012 order.
In the
present writ petition against the CIC order filed in the Delhi High Court, the
Supreme Court (Petitioner) was represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra
along with advocates Maneesha Dhir, KPS Kohli, Satyam Thareja and Neha Singh.
The Respondents were represented by Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for Prashant
Bhushan.
The counsel
for the Petitioner argued that only existing information could be directed to
be disclosed under the Act and that public authorities could not be directed to
create, hold and maintain information in any other manner. It was also argued
that the CIC order impinges upon the power entrusted upon the Supreme Court
under Article 145 of the Constitution to make suitable rules for regulating its
practice and procedure.
The counsel
for the Respondents, however, contended that the information exists and is held
by the public authority but is not being compiled or kept such that it is
accessible in a transparent manner. Moreover, it was argued that the CIC, under
the Act, has the power to change the processes of maintenance and management of
records. Lastly, the need to ensure transparency and avoid misuse or abuse of
authority was stressed upon.
However,
Justice Bakhru held that,
“…information
relating to the medical records would be personal information which is exempt
from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. The medical bills would
indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would
clearly be an invasion of the privacy.”
The Court
also declared the CIC order to be “erroneous”, stating that it completely
overlooked the fact that,
“…medical
records are not liable to be disclosed unless it is shown that the same is in
larger public interest.”
The Court
also noted that though the information sought is available, the counsel for the
Respondent failed to establish the larger interest that would benefit the
public, and as a result, allowed the petition and set aside the CIC order.
Earlier this
month, Justice Bakhru had upheld a CIC order to disclose information regarding
reserved judgments.
.JPG)
.JPG)
