State information commission asks Uttarakhand High Court to give data on complaints against district judges

Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi was hearing a second appeal filed by an RTI applicant, a 2002 batch Indian Forest Services officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi seeking information related to complaints, disciplinary action and procedural rules governing the subordinate judiciary in Uttarakhand.

“The Public Information Officer (PIO) is directed to obtain approval from the competent authority regarding the number of cases and ensure that the requested information is provided to the appellant within one month of receiving this order. Furthermore, the PIO must inform the Commission regarding the compliance of these directions,” the order dated January 1 and when translated from Hindi to English said.

Chaturvedi argued that because the Right to Information stems from Article 19, denying the information he sought violated his fundamental rights. (File photo)

The appeal originated from an RTI application dated May 14, 2025, filed by Chaturvedi, at present posted as chief conservator of forest (working plan), Forest Training Institute in Haldwani of Uttarakhand.

The officer sought detailed information from the office of the registrar general, Uttarakhand High Court including certified copies of service rules and conduct regulations applicable to the trial courts, procedures for initiating disciplinary proceedings and handling complaints of corruption or misconduct against judicial officers, total number of complaints filed against trial court judges in Uttarakhand between January 1, 2020 and April 15, 2025, number of cases in which disciplinary or criminal action was recommended or initiated and file notings and internal documents generated during the processing of the RTI application.

The public information officer responded on June 19, 2025, providing limited information and declining disclosure of several items on the grounds of confidentiality and institutional sensitivity.

Aggrieved by the partial response, the appellant filed a first appeal on June 23, 2025, which was dismissed by the first appellate authority on July 14, 2025. This led to the filing of the second appeal before the state information commission.

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the Right to Information Act flows directly from Article 19 of the Constitution, and therefore, denial of information without valid exemption violated his fundamental rights.

He contended that at the very least, statistical and aggregated information relating to complaints and disciplinary actions should be disclosed, without revealing names or sensitive details.

On the other hand, the public information officer submitted that information relating to complaints against judicial officers was confidential in nature and could not be disclosed without prior approval of the competent authority which, in this case happens to be the chief justice of Uttarakhand High Court.

It was further argued that indiscriminate disclosure could affect the independence of the judiciary and ongoing administrative processes.

After examining the pleadings, records and submissions, the commission held that while individual complaint files and personal details of judicial officers cannot be disclosed, the RTI Act does not bar disclosure of non-personal, statistical and anonymised information.

The commission noted that the appellant’s request at serial number 3 of the RTI application pertained to numerical data on complaints and actions taken, which does not automatically fall under exempted categories.

It said that based on an observation of the statements made by both parties and the records available in the file, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to the information requested against point number 3 of the application.

In point number 3 of the request, the appellant sought the number of complaints received against judges/officers posted in the subordinate courts of Uttarakhand, as well as the number of cases in which disciplinary or criminal proceedings were recommended based on those complaints, the commission noted.

The order, the copy of which is with The Indian Express clarified that transparency and accountability are integral to democratic governance, but must be balanced against the need to protect judicial independence and confidentiality.

The commission directed the public information officer to obtain approval from the competent authority, provide aggregate information on the total number of complaints received against subordinate judicial officers in Uttarakhand, the number of cases in which disciplinary or criminal action was recommended or initiated during the specified period, be sure that no names, identities, or case-specific confidential details are disclosed and supply the information to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

However, the commission rejected the appellant’s demand for disclosure of file notings and internal correspondence, holding that such documents are protected due to their sensitive nature.

With these directions, the second appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was disposed of.

Senior advocate Sudarshan Goel Chaturvedi called it a landmark development and said that it will usher transparency in working of district level judiciary.

He said that the officer filed this application in view of number of illegitimate orders and practices.

“The applications filed by the officer before trial courts were adjudicated by way of erroneous recording of his presence, copies of pending criminal proceedings filed by him were supplied to third parties to his detriment,” he said.

The senior advocate further added that various laws settled by Apex Court in this regard, were completely ignored.

In August 2025, the Delhi High Court had declined a Right to Information request seeking detailed statistics on complaints filed against district court judges over the past decade.

The application, filed by one Shonee Kapoor, requested data from 2015 onwards regarding the volume and nature of allegations including professional misconduct, bribery, sexual harassment, and incompetence as well as the outcomes of any resulting disciplinary actions.

Lack of records: The court explicitly stated, “No such data is maintained,” suggesting that statistical compilations of these specific categories do not exist in a ready format.

Legal exemptions: The reply invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information that has no bearing on public interest or would invade an individual’s privacy. It also referenced Section 2(n) regarding “third party” information.