Times of India: New Delhi: Wednesday, 20 August 2025.
Delhi High Court has refused to provide statistical data on the number and nature of complaints filed against district court judges since 2015, along with information on the action taken in such cases.
The court, in its response
to an RTI query, said through its public information officer on Aug 8 that it
cannot provide the requested information. The reply stated: "No such data
is maintained."
Shonee Kapoor, a law practitioner who filed the RTI, asked six questions that focused on the number of complaints filed against judges of Delhi's district courts before the high court since 2015, the nature of the complaints in terms of professional misconduct, bribery, sexual harassment, incompetence, and others, and in how many complaints was any judge chargesheeted or disciplinary action was initiated him or her. Kapoor also wanted to know in how many cases was a judge discharged or set free, in how many cases action was taken against a guilty judge, the nature of the punishment/action against any guilty judge, and whether any action was taken against anyone for filing false and frivolous complaints against judges of the Delhi district courts.
Invoking Section 2(n) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the high court said that the information sought could not be provided. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, exempts the disclosing of information which relates to personal information, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the person. Section 2(n) of the Act defines "third party" as any person or entity other than the citizen who has requested the information. This includes a public authority that may be involved in the information being sought.
"Your instant application seeking information under RTI Act, 2005, stands replied. No further correspondence in the matter will be entertained in the RTI Cell, Delhi High Court," the reply said.
Kapoor, questioning the reply, said: "If data regarding complaints against legislators, bureaucrats and police officials can be made public, why should the judiciary be exempt from similar standards of accountability?"
The men's rights activist said he did not inquire about the contents or specifications of the complaints but only the figures to know how many such complaints were filed and what their outcomes were. He added that the reluctance of the high court to provide basic data regarding the complaints raised serious concerns about transparency and accountability in the judicial system.
"While citizens are entitled to seek information from public authorities to ensure fair governance, the judiciary's reluctance to disclose even basic statistical data on complaints against judges reflects an opaque system," he said. "None of the questions was answered. The blanket denial indicates that either no proper record of such complaints is being maintained, or the judiciary is unwilling to share the data with the public. Both situations are deeply problematic," Kapoor said.
The reply stated that in case he is not satisfied with the information given, he is at liberty to file an appeal with the appellate authority, registrar IT, in Delhi High Court, within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Delhi High Court has refused to provide statistical data on the number and nature of complaints filed against district court judges since 2015, along with information on the action taken in such cases.
Shonee Kapoor, a law practitioner who filed the RTI, asked six questions that focused on the number of complaints filed against judges of Delhi's district courts before the high court since 2015, the nature of the complaints in terms of professional misconduct, bribery, sexual harassment, incompetence, and others, and in how many complaints was any judge chargesheeted or disciplinary action was initiated him or her. Kapoor also wanted to know in how many cases was a judge discharged or set free, in how many cases action was taken against a guilty judge, the nature of the punishment/action against any guilty judge, and whether any action was taken against anyone for filing false and frivolous complaints against judges of the Delhi district courts.
Invoking Section 2(n) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the high court said that the information sought could not be provided. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, exempts the disclosing of information which relates to personal information, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the person. Section 2(n) of the Act defines "third party" as any person or entity other than the citizen who has requested the information. This includes a public authority that may be involved in the information being sought.
"Your instant application seeking information under RTI Act, 2005, stands replied. No further correspondence in the matter will be entertained in the RTI Cell, Delhi High Court," the reply said.
Kapoor, questioning the reply, said: "If data regarding complaints against legislators, bureaucrats and police officials can be made public, why should the judiciary be exempt from similar standards of accountability?"
The men's rights activist said he did not inquire about the contents or specifications of the complaints but only the figures to know how many such complaints were filed and what their outcomes were. He added that the reluctance of the high court to provide basic data regarding the complaints raised serious concerns about transparency and accountability in the judicial system.
"While citizens are entitled to seek information from public authorities to ensure fair governance, the judiciary's reluctance to disclose even basic statistical data on complaints against judges reflects an opaque system," he said. "None of the questions was answered. The blanket denial indicates that either no proper record of such complaints is being maintained, or the judiciary is unwilling to share the data with the public. Both situations are deeply problematic," Kapoor said.
The reply stated that in case he is not satisfied with the information given, he is at liberty to file an appeal with the appellate authority, registrar IT, in Delhi High Court, within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
.JPG)
.JPG)
