New Delhi: The Gujarat high court ruled that information regarding the salary and allowance of a high court judge cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act because it qualifies as “personal information” under the Act.
By doing so, the high court quashed the order of the Gujarat Information Commission which had directed the concerned authorities to disclose the information to the petitioner.
Information denial
Social activist Chandravadan Dhruv filed an application under the RTI Act on June 14, 2016, seeking information on the appointment of an additional judge in the Gujarat high court, the judge’s duty prior to the appointment, and other aspects related to the judge’s duties at the post, and later suspension. The details he sought also included the additional judge’s salary and allowances.
However, the public information officer (PIO) of the Gujarat high court denied this information citing that it was personal and comes under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
As per Section 8 (1) (j) in the RTI Act, “information that relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority as the case may be is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”.
Dhruv had then appealed to the appellate authority which also dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. He then filed a second appeal with the Gujarat Information Commission for the said details. The commission said that the information should be given under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act.
As per this Section, the monthly remuneration received by public authorities – officers and employees – comes under the purview of the Act.
Personal information
However, the Gujarat HC administration challenged the commission’s order, saying that the pay and allowances of judges “cannot be branded as of one being of the officers and employees” and that the directive of the Information Commission was “misconceived”. It also cited cases in the Supreme Court wherein the Information Commission had itself refused to provide details of the salary of an employee despite it falling under the ambit of Section 4 under the RTI Act because information – including qualification and performance – is personal and therefore entitled to protection.
Justice Biren Vaishnav of the Gujarat HC noted these cases and ruled that the order of the State Information Commission to permit the disclosure of the salary and allowance of the judge is quashed.