Information related to complaints filed against judges and judicial officers cannot be denied merely on the grounds of confidentiality. The Chief Information Commissioner has delivered this ruling while deciding a second appeal filed by IFS officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi. The Commission observed that accountability is the foundation of a democratic system and this principle also applies to the judiciary.
The order clarified that details regarding complaints registered against judges and officers of the subordinate judiciary cannot be refused outright by labeling them as confidential. Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi partially allowed the appeal and directed that the required information be provided within one month after obtaining approval from the competent authority. At the same time, the Commission made it clear that the identity of any judge or judicial officer must not be disclosed.
Sanjeev Chaturvedi, Chief Conservator of Forest (Research), Haldwani, had sought information under the Right to Information Act related to Uttarakhand’s subordinate judiciary between January 1, 2020 and April 15, 2025. His application included queries on service rules applicable to subordinate courts, the number of complaints registered against judicial officers and judges, disciplinary or criminal action taken on such complaints, and certified copies of related procedures and documents.
In response, the Public Information Officer of the High Court refused to provide the information, stating that the complaints were sensitive and confidential in nature. It was also argued that such information could be shared only under the High Court Vigilance Rules, 2019 and with the permission of the Chief Justice. Following this, Chaturvedi approached the Information Commission with a second appeal.
Also Read This – Lohri, Makar Sankranti: Heavy vehicle entry banned in Haridwar, follow traffic plan
Rejecting this argument, the Commission held that confidentiality alone cannot be a valid ground to deny information. It stated that data related to the number of complaints, the procedure followed, and the mechanism for their disposal falls within the scope of public interest. However, personal details or identities of individual judges or officers are to remain protected. The Commission reiterated that transparency and accountability are essential to democratic governance and these principles extend to judicial processes as well.
