ETV Bharat: Dehradun: Tuesday, 13th January
2026
Uttarakhand Information Commission Directs Providing Of Information On Subordinate Judiciary Under RTI (IANS). The personal identity or name of any judge or officer will not be made public, and permission will have to be taken before providing information
In an important decision
taken in Uttarakhand under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Uttarakhand
Information Commission has directed the disclosure of information related to
complaints filed against officials and judges of the subordinate judiciary.
This will be the first time in the country that such information will be made
public. The appeal and order in the matter could set a precedent for the
country.
The December 29, 2025, order, accessed by ETV Bharat, was passed under the chairmanship of Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi.
The matter pertains to an appeal filed by Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi seeking information on rules, complaints and action taken against the subordinate judiciary.
The RTI application filed by the appellant on May 14, 2025, sought information on the service rules, conduct rules and disciplinary action procedures applicable to the subordinate judiciary in Uttarakhand. It also sought information on where and how complaints against judicial officers related to corruption or other matters are filed.
It was also sought how many complaints were filed against officers and judges of the subordinate judiciary between January 1, 2020 and April 15, 2025, and how many of these cases resulted in the recommendation or implementation of disciplinary or criminal action. The appellant had asked for certified copies of the file notings and documents generated during the RTI application process.
However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the appellant with complete information, stating that the information requested was confidential and related to a third party. He also argued that permission from the competent authority was required before providing such information.
Dissatisfied with this response, the appellant filed a departmental appeal and then a second appeal with the Information Commissioner, following which the directive was issued.
During the course of the proceedings, where both the appellant and the PIO were present, the appellant argued before the Commission that the information regarding the number of complaints and their disposal process was in the public interest and could not be considered confidential. The PIO reiterated that the complaints, involving judicial officers, were sensitive and could not be made public without permission.
After hearing arguments, the Information Commission stated in its order that merely stating that information is confidential is not sufficient grounds for withholding it. The Commission acknowledged that information regarding the number of complaints and the process for their disposal in the subordinate judiciary falls within the scope of transparency.
However, the Commission also clarified that the personal identity or name of any judge or officer will not be made public. The Commission directed that necessary permission should be obtained from the competent level before providing information regarding the number of complaints and the process.
The Information Commission has directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant within one month of obtaining permission from the competent authority. The Commission also clarified that until such permission is granted, the appeal will be considered partially accepted.
Experts believe this order is an important step towards increasing transparency in the judicial system. It will clarify how complaints are monitored and processed in the subordinate judiciary. Furthermore, this order will set a precedent for individuals seeking information related to judicial administration through RTI in future.
Uttarakhand Information Commission Directs Providing Of Information On Subordinate Judiciary Under RTI (IANS). The personal identity or name of any judge or officer will not be made public, and permission will have to be taken before providing information
The December 29, 2025, order, accessed by ETV Bharat, was passed under the chairmanship of Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi.
The matter pertains to an appeal filed by Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi seeking information on rules, complaints and action taken against the subordinate judiciary.
The RTI application filed by the appellant on May 14, 2025, sought information on the service rules, conduct rules and disciplinary action procedures applicable to the subordinate judiciary in Uttarakhand. It also sought information on where and how complaints against judicial officers related to corruption or other matters are filed.
It was also sought how many complaints were filed against officers and judges of the subordinate judiciary between January 1, 2020 and April 15, 2025, and how many of these cases resulted in the recommendation or implementation of disciplinary or criminal action. The appellant had asked for certified copies of the file notings and documents generated during the RTI application process.
However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the appellant with complete information, stating that the information requested was confidential and related to a third party. He also argued that permission from the competent authority was required before providing such information.
Dissatisfied with this response, the appellant filed a departmental appeal and then a second appeal with the Information Commissioner, following which the directive was issued.
During the course of the proceedings, where both the appellant and the PIO were present, the appellant argued before the Commission that the information regarding the number of complaints and their disposal process was in the public interest and could not be considered confidential. The PIO reiterated that the complaints, involving judicial officers, were sensitive and could not be made public without permission.
After hearing arguments, the Information Commission stated in its order that merely stating that information is confidential is not sufficient grounds for withholding it. The Commission acknowledged that information regarding the number of complaints and the process for their disposal in the subordinate judiciary falls within the scope of transparency.
However, the Commission also clarified that the personal identity or name of any judge or officer will not be made public. The Commission directed that necessary permission should be obtained from the competent level before providing information regarding the number of complaints and the process.
The Information Commission has directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant within one month of obtaining permission from the competent authority. The Commission also clarified that until such permission is granted, the appeal will be considered partially accepted.
Experts believe this order is an important step towards increasing transparency in the judicial system. It will clarify how complaints are monitored and processed in the subordinate judiciary. Furthermore, this order will set a precedent for individuals seeking information related to judicial administration through RTI in future.
.JPG)
.JPG)
