An applicant seek information from court under Right to Information Act, as to why the judge had come to a...
Right to Information (RTI) Act and Seeking Judicial Reasoning from Courts
🔍 Background:
The Right to Information Act, 2005 empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability. Courts are considered public authorities under the Act, and many orders, judgments, and court records are generally accessible.
However, a question arises when an applicant seeks information about why a judge came to a particular conclusion or requests the internal reasoning process behind judicial decisions. This raises important legal and constitutional questions about:
Judicial independence,
Confidentiality of judicial deliberations,
Transparency and public access to justice.
⚖️ Legal Position:
1. Information Accessible Under RTI
Final judgments, orders, and pleadings are public records and generally accessible.
Court records, including case status, court orders, and judgments, are information available under RTI.
However, the internal notes, thought processes, or subjective reasons of a judge during decision-making are not usually recorded as “information.”
2. Limits on Disclosure
Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution, and judges’ deliberative processes are protected.
Disclosure of subjective reasoning or internal notes may interfere with judicial function.
RTI does not require disclosure of information that would impair the process of justice or judicial independence.
3. Information vs. Opinion
RTI applies to information held by public authorities.
The judge’s mental process or subjective reasoning is not “information” in the statutory sense.
Courts distinguish between recorded information (like written judgments) and internal thought processes.
🧑⚖️ Relevant Case Law:
1. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India v. Centre for Public Interest Litigation (C.P.I.L.), (2019) 6 SCC 1
The Supreme Court held that courts are public authorities under RTI.
It directed disclosure of court records, judgments, cause lists, etc.
However, it clarified that judicial independence must be protected, and internal deliberations or notes are not accessible under RTI.
2. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497
The Supreme Court elaborated on the scope of RTI.
It held that information must be “material” and “existing”.
Personal opinions or mental processes are not information under RTI.
3. High Court of Kerala v. Central Information Commission, (2019) 14 SCC 713
Held that judgments and orders passed by courts are public documents.
However, judges’ internal notes or reasoning process are not subject to disclosure under RTI.
4. Shailesh Gandhi v. Chief Information Commissioner (2018) Delhi HC
Held that the reasoning recorded in judgments/orders is accessible.
But interim internal notes or private memos of judges are exempt from disclosure.
📝 Summary Table:
| Issue | Position under RTI and Law |
|---|---|
| Access to final judgments/orders | Available under RTI as public documents |
| Access to court records and pleadings | Available under RTI |
| Access to judges’ internal deliberations or mental process | Not available; protected by judicial independence |
| Access to subjective opinions or notes not recorded in judgments | Not available under RTI |
| Protection of judicial independence | Paramount; limits RTI applicability |
📌 Conclusion:
An applicant may seek information about the outcome and reasoning as recorded in judgments under the RTI Act, and courts are required to provide such information. However, the internal thought processes, deliberations, or reasons which are not part of the formal record are not accessible under RTI to safeguard judicial independence and impartiality. This balance maintains transparency in the judicial system while protecting the sanctity of judicial decision-making.
RELATED Blog
0 comments