Judges Of High Court Hold Constitutional Post, Information About Their Salary and Allowances Cannot Be Disclosed Under Section 4(1)(b)(x) Of RTI Act: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed and set aside State Information Commission's order directing disclosure of the salary and allowances of a former Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court under the RTI Act. Chandravadan Dhruv had filed an application under the RTI Act on 14.06.2016 seeking certain information, one of which was to provide information regarding the Salary...
The Gujarat High Court recently quashed and set aside State Information Commission's order directing disclosure of the salary and allowances of a former Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court under the RTI Act.
Chandravadan Dhruv had filed an application under the RTI Act on 14.06.2016 seeking certain information, one of which was to provide information regarding the Salary and allowances paid to the said judge for performing her duty as Additional Judge, Gujarat High Court.
The Public Information Officer denied disclosure of the information by invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act stating that it was personal information which had no relationship with any public activity.
Aggrieved by the order of the Public Information Officer, Dhruv preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. By a judgement and order dated 03.09.2016, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal reiterating the findings of the Public Information Officer.
Dhruv then filed a second appeal before the Gujarat Information Commission and the Information Commission by the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 stated that information regarding Salary and allowances paid to the concerned judge should be given under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act.
The High Court administration challenged the order. Advocate Trusha Patel argued that Section 4(1)(b)(x) deals with monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees. Patel contended that pay and allowances of the Judges of the High Court "cannot be branded as of one being of the officers and employees."
"As far as officers and employees are concerned a proactive declaration with regard to the officers and employees of the High Court is made," Patel submitted.
Justice Biren Vaishnav said, “the position of a Judge of the High Court is a constitutional post which could fall within the parameters of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act which deals with monthly remuneration of officers and employees. The finding of the Commission therefore that the Information Officer needed to be supplied is patently bad.”
The court relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Ors and Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, which were earlier cited by the counsel representing the high court.
It quashed and set aside the impugned order to the extent it directs the petitioner to provide the information relating to salary and allowances paid to the concerned judge of the High Court.
Case Title: High Court of Gujarat v. Chandravadan Dhruv & 1 Other
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 23
Coram: Justice Biren Vaishnav