Madras High Court
The High Court Of Judicature At Madras, vs The Tamil Nadu Information Commission/ on 15 June, 2026
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 15.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.13842 OF 2024
AND
W.M.P. NO.14999 OF 2024
The High Court of Judicature at Madras
Rep. by its Registrar General
High Court, Madras. .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission/
2nd Appellate Authority
Rep. By State Information Commissioner
No.19, Government Farm Village
(Pension Pay Office Backside)
Panepet, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
2. Akbar Ahamed .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records and orders passed by
the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, relating to case in
S.A.17084/A/2021 dated 18.10.2023 and quash the same.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
For Petitioner : Mr. Ayyadurai, SC, for
Mr. A.Durai Eswar
For Respondents : Mr. C.Vigneswaran for R-1
No Appearance for R-2
ORDER
An order passed by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to furnish
the information with regard to the administration of the Registry, sought for by
the 2nd respondent, under the Right to Information Act (for short ‘RTI Act’) is put
in issue before this Court by the petitioner.
2. The 2nd respondent had submitted an application under the RTI Act to
the Public Information Officer of the petitioner seeking certain information
relating to the administrative activities of this Court, more particularly with
respect to the constitution of the Committee, the qualification of the members of
the committee, their experience, functions and responsibilities of the
Administrative Committee of the High Court. The petition seeking the said
information was negatived by the Public Information Officer by relying upon the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P. No.20485/2012 dated 17.12.2013
against when the 2nd respondent moved the appellate authority and the appellate
authority confirmed the said order passed by the Public Information Officer.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
Aggrieved by the said rejection, the 2nd respondent preferred the second appeal
before the 1st respondent, who, after adjudication, passed the impugned order
dated 18.10.2023 directing the petitioner to provide the information to the 2 nd
respondent, as sought for, and further directed to file compliance report,
aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
information sought for by the 2nd respondent cannot be provided as it relates to
the internal administration of the Registry and that the same is exempted u/s 8 of
the RTI Act. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the
reason for rejection of the information sought for by the 2 nd respondent stems
from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20485/2012
dated 17.12.2013, which has since been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil)
CC No.17294/2013 dated 4.10.2013, in and by which, information relating to
enquiries conducted by the Vigilance Department and personal details
unconnected with the discharge of duties were exempted from disclosure by
relying upon Section 8 of the RTI Act. It is the submission of the learned senior
counsel that though the decision and the provisions of the RTI Act were brought
to the notice of the 1st respondent, however, without properly considering all the
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
above, the impugned order had come to be passed, which if allowed to continue
and subsist, would gravely prejudice the functioning of the Court and, therefore,
prays for allowing the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submits that the
present writ petition is premised on the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.
No.20485/2012, which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in WLP (Civil) CC
No.17294/2013. However, the said decision would not be applicable to the facts
of the present case as in the said decision, the information sought for related to
vigilance enquiries against the judicial officers, which was exempted u/s 8 of the
RTI Act. However, in the present case, the information sought for by the 2 nd
respondent does not fall under any of the exemptions provided u/s 8 of the RTI
Act and further it is submitted that the information which is sought for by the 2 nd
respondent is not held by the petitioner in a fiduciary capacity as provided for
under clause (e) to Section 8 (1). It is further submitted that the information also
does not relate to any personal information, but which are information which are
shareable if sought for by the Parliament or the State Legislature and, therefore,
it cannot be denied to any person, who seeks for the same and which is provided
under proviso to clause (j) of Section 8 (1). Rightly appreciating all the above and
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
also going into the relevancy and the nature of the information sought for, the 1 st
respondent had directed the petitioner to provide the information to the 2 nd
respondent and submit compliance report, which cannot be said to be erroneous,
illegal or arbitrary and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference.
5. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available
on record.
6. The order of rejection of the appeal by the petitioner was on the basis
of the order of the Division Bench in The Registrar General, High Court of
Madras – Vs – K.Elango & Anr. (W.P. No.20485/2012 dated 17.12.2013), which
is said to have been confirmed in SLP (Civil) CC No.17294/2013 vide order dated
4.10.2013. Therefore, this Court has to first satisfy itself as to whether the said
order would bar parting with of the information sought for by the 2 nd respondent.
For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said order of the Division
Bench is quoted hereunder :-
“2.The Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, in Case
No.10447/Enquiry/A/11 dated 10.01.2012 has, among other
things, observed that ‘A perusal of the appeal and the replies5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024furnished by the public authority shows that the appellant has
only asked for details relating to the number of subordinate
Judges, employees, complaints of bribe and so on in the
subordinate judiciary. He has not asked for details of anything
which could be termed as Judicial proceedings or part of the
Judicial process. During the enquiry it was also confirmed by the
Assistant Public Information Officer that these details are received
and collected by the Registry of the High Court routinely. Section 4
of the RTI Act very clearly defines the obligation of the public
authorities. Most of the information sought for by the present
appellant seem to be covered in this section. Such being the case
the Hon’ble High Court,Madras, being a public authority, requires
to provide access to these information unless expressly prohibited
by a Competent forum or exempted as defined under various
sections of the RTI Act. It is also observed that the appellant has
asked only for statistical details and not names of individuals.
Therefore, the argument of “un warranted invasion of privacy of
individuals” is very weak and hence not accepted’ and resultantly,
allowed the appeal by directing the public authority (Writ
Petitioner) to furnish the details within 15 days from the date of
receipt of this order.
…………..
13.The Learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent urges
before this Court that Section 22 of the Right to Information Act
enjoins that the provisions of the Act have an overriding effect on
the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) and any other law for
the time being in force etc. Viewed in that perspective, it is6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024contended that the informations sought for by the 1 st
Respondent/Petitioner, by his Letter dated 01.11.2010, can be
supplied by the Petitioner/High Court, because of the reason that
he has sought for statistical particulars and names of individuals
concerned. In short, the Learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd
Respondent contends that the impugned order dated 10.01.2012
passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission does not suffer
from any impropriety or illegality, in the eye of law.
14.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
information sought for by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner in his
application dated 01.11.2010 addressed to Public Information
Officer of High Court relates to the internal administration of the
Madras High Court and the information sought for by the 1 st
Respondent/Petitioner from Serial Nos.1 to 9 in his application
dated 01.11.2010, if furnished would cause an invasion of privacy
of the individuals. Therefore, under the ingredients of Section 8(e)
and (f) of the Act, the Writ Petitioner is exempted to disclose the
information sought for. Also, as per Section 8(i) of the Act, the
Petitioner/High Court is exempted to disclose the information
sought for by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner.
…………
35.For denying the information as per Section 8(e) of the Right
to Information Act, 2005, the following paramount factors may be
taken into consideration.
(a) Whether supplying/furnishing information on public
records would impede the
investigation/apprehension/prosecution;
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
(b) Whether the information is such that can be
refused/denied to Parliament or State Legislature;
(c) Whether public interest in disclosure earns the protected
interest;
(d) Section 22 of the Right to Information Act has an
overriding effect and as such, the legal procedure enshrined for
quasi judicial proceedings gets overridden by the Right to
Information Act.
36.In this connection, this Court worth recalls the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Namit Sharma V. Union of India
[2013-2-L.W.1 at page 2] wherein it is laid down as follows:
“The Right to Information, like any other right, is not an
unlimited or unrestricted right. It is subject to statutory and
constitutional limitations. The doctrine of severability finds
place in the statue in the shape of Section 10 of the Act of
2005″.
…………..
44.Coming to the aspect of non disclosure of information, it is
to be pointed out that the ingredients of Section 8 and 11 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, there is total bar on 6 out of 10
exceptions i.e. 1(a), (b), (c), (f), (g) & (h). Insofar as the matters
covered by Section 8(1)(d), (e)(h) and (i) of Section 8 of the Act,
the Information Officers are necessarily to record a finding by
taking into account the relative merit between the Public interest
and secrecy. If the public interest outweighs private interest, then,
the information has to be furnished. Otherwise, the Officer is
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
entitled to assign reasons for refusing to supply/furnish the
information in question.
………..
53. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
the Officers are not required to provide private or personal
information which is exempted. As a matter of fact, the
informations relating to employees in High Court/Subordinate
Courts/Judicial Officers etc. are inter se matters between an
employer and employee in an institution which are purely
governed by respective service rules. In fact, it partakes the
character of ‘personal information’, the disclosure of the same has
no public interest or public activity. It cannot be lost sight of that
under the concept of ‘Right to Know’, a Public Information Officer
is not supposed to be harassed or persecuted/prosecuted.
54. It is to be pointed out that the personal information and
the information between persons in fiduciary relationship is
exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act.
Also, ‘Confidence’ may be outweighed by public interest in the
matter of such disclosure.
55.The Learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd Respondent cites the
decision of High Court of Delhi in Secretary General, Supreme
Court of India V. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, [2010 (1) CTC 241]
(Full Bench), wherein it is held as under:
“Every citizen is entitled to information held by or
under Control of Public Authority unless it is exempted by
Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act etc.”
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
56. Moreover, it is held that ‘The Resolution of Full Court of the
Honourable Supreme Court treating declaration of assets by
Judges as confidential does not make it any less information which
citizen is entitled to access’.
………….
59. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective
contentions and on going through the contents of the application
st
dated 01.11.2010 filed by the 1 Respondent/Applicant, this
Court is of the considered view that the information sought for by
him in Serial Nos.1 to 9 pertaining to the internal delicate
functioning/administration of the High Court besides the same
relate to invasion of privacy of respective individuals if the
informations so asked for are furnished and more so, the
informations sought for have no relationship to any public activity
or interest. Moreover, the informations sought for by the 1 st
Respondent/Applicant, through his application dated 01.11.2010
addressed to the Public Information Officer of the High Court,
Chennai, are not to a fuller extent open to public domain. Added
further, if the informations sought for by the 1 st
Respondent/Applicant, through his letter dated 01.11.2010
addressed to the Public Information Officer of High Court, are
divulged, then, it will open floodgates/Pandora Box compelling
the Petitioner/High Court to supply the informations sought for by
the concerned Requisitionists as a matter of routine, without any
rhyme or reasons/restrictions as the case may be. Therefore, some
self restrictions are to be imposed in regard to the supply of
informations in this regard. As a matter of fact, the Notings,
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
Jottings, Administrative Letters, Intricate Internal Discussions,
Deliberations etc. of the Petitioner/High Court cannot be brought
under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in our
considered opinion of this Court. Also that, if the informations
relating to Serial Nos.1 to 9 mentioned in the application of the 1 st
Respondent/Applicant dated 01.11.2010 are directed to be
furnished or supplied with, then, certainly, it will impede and
hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the
Institution viz., High Court (an independent authority under the
Constitution of India, free from Executive or Legislature), as
opined by this Court. As such, a Saner Counsel/Balancing Act is to
be adopted in matters relating to the application of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, so that an adequate freedom and inbuilt
safeguard can be provided to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High
Court [competent authority and public authority as per Section
2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of the Act 22 of 2005] in exercising his
discretionary powers either to supply the information or to deny
the information, as prayed for by the Applicants/Requisitionists
concerned.
………..
61. To put it differently, if the informations sought for by the
1st Respondent/Applicant, through his letter dated
01.11.2010/Appeal dated 20.12.2010, are divulged or furnished
by the Office of the High Court (on administrative side), then, the
secrecy and privacy of the internal working process may get
jeopardised, besides the furnishing of said informations would
result in invasion of unwarranted and uncalled for privacy of
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
individuals concerned. Even the disclosure of informations
pertaining to departmental enquiries in respect of Disciplinary
Actions initiated against the Judicial Officers/Officials of the
Subordinate Court or the High Court will affect the facile, smooth
and independent running of the administration of the High Court,
under the Constitution of India. Moreover, as per Section 2(e) of
the read with Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court is empowered to frame rules to
carry out the provisions of the Act. In this regard, we point out
that ‘Madras High Court Right to Information (Regulation of Fee
and Cost) Rules, 2007’ have been framed [vide
R.O.C.No.2636-A/06/F1 – SRO C-3/2008] in Tamil Nadu Gazette,
No.20, dated 21.05.2008, Pt.III, S.2. Also, a Notification, in
Roc.No.976 A/2008/RTI dated 18.11.2008, has been issued by this
Court to the said Rules, by bringing certain amendments in regard
to the Name and Designation of the Officers mentioned therein,
the same has come into force from 18.11.2008.”
7. In fine, as premised in para-61, the information as sought for by the 2 nd
respondent, if provided, would impact the secrecy, privacy and internal working
process and jeopardize the interest of the administration and the individuals, as
the same relates to vigilance statistics, including the names of the judicial officers
against whom complaints have been received and would affect the smooth and
independent running of the administration and on that basis, the Division Bench
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
had negatived the request of the complainant therein, which has received the
affirmation from the hands of the Apex Court. This Court is not only bound by
the said decision, but it is also in respectful agreement with the view expressed
therein.
8. Before adverting to the facts of the case and applying the provisions of
law, it would be trite to refer to the objects and reasons for which the RTI Act
was enacted, the preamble to which reads as under :-
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information for citizens to secure access to information
under the control of public authorities, in order to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority, the constitution of a Central Information
Commission and State Information Commissions and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established
democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry
and transparency of information which are vital to its
functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold
Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the
governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice
is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal
resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the
democratic ideal;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing
certain information to citizens who desire to have it.
9. From the above, it would be evident that every public authority is
required to maintain all its record duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and
the form which facilitates the right to information and also ensure that all records
that are necessary to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject
to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all
over the country on different systems so that access to such record is facilitated.
Public authority has also to carry out certain other functions also, as provided
under the RTI Act.
10. As provided in the objects and reasons to the enactment of the RTI
Act, right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability
in the working of every public authority has been the main reason for the coming
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
into force of the said Act so that democracy requires an informed citizenry and
transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain
corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to
the governed by providing safeguards and harmonizing the conflicting interests
which may arise in the furnishing of information by preserving the paramountcy
of the democratic ideal. Therefore, so long as there is no conflicting interest and
the security and safety is not jeopardized, the citizens are to be provided with all
the information that are available at the disposal of the public authority.
11. In such a backdrop, the moot question that falls for consideration is
whether the ratio laid down in Elango’s case, which forms the basis for rejection
of the information sought for, would be attracted to the case on hand so as to
deny the information sought for by the 2nd respondent.
12. Before proceeding to dissect and find out whether the said information
could be parted with or not, the information that have been exempted under the
RTI Act, as provided for u/s 8 are as under :-
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information :- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect
the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic,
scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign
State or lead to incitement of an offence;
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be
published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of
which may constitute contempt of court;
(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach
of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets
or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the
competitive position of a third party, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the
larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(f) information received in confidence from foreign
Government;
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the
life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of
information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement
or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the
Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons
thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were
taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and
the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the
exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
(j) information which 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:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the
Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any
person.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923
nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-
section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if
public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected
interests.
(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-
section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or
matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years
before the date on which any request is made under secton 6 shall
be provided to any person making a request under that section:
Provided that where any question arises as to the date from
which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the
17https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the
usual appeals provided for in this Act.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. In the background of the information that are exempted from
disclosure u/s 8 of the RTI Act, the information sought for by the 2 nd respondent
has to be looked at to find out whether it falls within the ambit of information
which could not be disclosed, as has been held by the Division Bench in Elango’s
case (supra).
14. In Elango’s case, the division Bench had held that “information relating
to employees in High Court/Subordinate Courts/Judicial Officers etc. are inter se
matters between an employer and employee in an institution which are purely
governed by respective service rules. In fact, it partakes the character of ‘personal
information’, the disclosure of the same has no public interest or public activity”,
however, what is sought for in the present case does not relate to any particular
employee; rather it relates to a particular issue regarding the constitution of the
committee and certain details about the members of the committee in relation to
the said the Party-in-Person rules and nothing further. Therefore, keeping aside
the employer-employee relationship, which would not be applicable in the
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
present case, as the information sought for relates to constitutional
functionaries, this court would now look into the information sought for to find
out whether the said information would stand exempted u/s 8 of the RTI Act.
15. The information, which have been sought for by the 2 nd respondent
vide his RTI Application dated 28.07.2021, as could be seen from the affidavit
filed in support of the petition by the petitioner are as under :-
“i) The Details of The High Court of Madras (Conduct of
Proceedings by Party-in-person) Rules 2019 as to;
a) Names & Designation of the members of the Party-in-
Person Committee,
b) Their previous & present experience details in the Field
of law,
c) Their previous and present achievement(s) details in the
field of law,
d) Their Educational background/qualification details,
e) Their expertise details in the field of law, such as in
Criminal Side or Civil side practice;
f) Their conduct details,
g) Their pay scale/salary details, and
ii) The functions, responsibilities, powers and Area/
Field/Limits of Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Administrative
Committee of The Madras High Court.
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
16. The information sought for is catalogued into two parts, viz., the first
part pertains to The High Court of Madras (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-
Person) Rules, 2019 and the names and designation of the members of the said
committee along with their experience, achievements and other details and the
second part pertains to their pay scale/salary details and also the functions,
responsibilities, powers and Area/Field/limits of jurisdiction of the Administrative
Committee of the High Court.
17. First of all, the information sought for by the 2 nd respondent would by
no stretch fall within the exemptions prescribed u/s 8 of the RTI Act. While The
High Court of Madras (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-Person) Rules, 2019, as
pointed out by the petitioner, is very much available in public domain and
accessible by each and every citizen, the same cannot be said to be an
information exempted under Section 8. However, the petitioner could very well
point out that it is available in the public domain which could be accessed by the
2nd respondent and need not hide itself under Section 8 by claiming it to be
exemption.
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
18. The other details sought for by the 2nd respondent pertains to the
names and designation of the members of the Party-in-Person Committee, which
has been constituted along with the experience details, achievements of the said
members in the field of law, their educational background/qualification details
and their field of expertise.
19. It is to be pointed out that the constitution of the Committee and the
composition of the members of the Committee is an administrative act, which is
not a classified information that could not be parted, as it is only the Judges of
the High Court, who would be members of the said Committee and the names of
the Judges having been published in the website of the High Court, merely
spelling out the names of the members/Judges, who constitute the Committee
would in no way jeopardize the administrative functioning of the High Court.
20. Further, it is also to be pointed out that the website of the High Court
carries the personal details of all the Judges, which is accessible by all the citizens
and that the details of the Judges is not held by the Registry in a fiduciary
capacity. The details of the Judges includes their qualification, their experience
as also their field of practice and when the same is available in the website, which
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
could be accessed by all the citizens, the petitioner cannot shield itself u/s 8 to
claim that the said information are exempted/classified information, which could
not be parted with as parting with would jeopardize the administrative
functioning of the High Court.
21. The other information sought for relates to the conduct details of the
members of the committee, which, definitely would not be within the realm of
information available with the High Court and, therefore, the petitioner could
very well claim that such information not being available with it, the petitioner
would not be in position to part with the said information.
22. Coming to the second part of the information sought for, it relates to
the pay scale/salary details, which is a matter of public record, as the Judges
receive the salary from out of the Consolidated Fund of India and their pay being
paid from the public fund, the public, including the 2 nd respondent, who is a
citizen of India cannot be precluded from knowing the details and, therefore,
there would be no embargo for providing the said information as it is not
exempted u/s 8 of the RTI Act.
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
23. Insofar as the other portion of the information sought for, the same
relates to the functions, responsibilities, power and area/field/limits of
jurisdiction of the Administrative Committee of the High Court. This merely
relates to the working of the High Court and is governed by the provisions in the
Constitution and also the respective Administrative Rules of the High Court.
Further, the information sought for merely relates to the administrative activities
and the responsibilities of the Administrative Committee and the area within
which the powers could be exercised. All these are constitutionally prescribed
and demarcated by the various decisions of the High Court and the Apex Court.
Such being the case, there being no element of confidentiality or sensitive nature
involved in the information, the petitioner cannot seek to hide itself u/s 8 of the
Act to not part with the information.
24. Further, the petitioner, to reject the application of the 2 nd respondent
by not providing the information, has tried to take shelter under the decision of
the division Bench in Elango’s case (supra). However, as stated above, the said
decision relates to sensitive and personal information relating to the vigilance
particulars of the judicial officers in relation to corrupt practice, which would be
in the stage of enquiry and various stages of disciplinary proceedings and parting
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
with the said information would cause grave prejudice not only to the petitioner
but also to the individual involved and, therefore, there being an element of
fiduciary relationship between the petitioner and its employee with regard to the
information, the Division Bench had held that the said information are exempted
from being provided u/s 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act.
25. However, in the present case, the information sought for is neither
sensitive or classified nor does it involves any element of fiduciary relationship,
which exempts the information from being provided. Further, Section 8 (1) (j)
though provides that personal information is exempted from being disclosed,
however, the proviso thereto has clearly delineated that information which
cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to
any person. In the present case, the information, which has been sought for by
the 2nd respondent is information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a
State Legislature and, therefore, any citizen is entitled to get the said information
under the provisions of the RTI Act.
26. On a clear misreading of the decision and erroneous application
thereof, the petitioner has rejected the application of the 2 nd respondent, which
24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
cannot be sustained. Though it is the stand of the petitioner that the 1 st
respondent has not carefully appreciated the decision relied on by the petitioner
in Elango’s case (supra) and, therefore, the said decision cannot be sustained,
however, this Court, has threadbare analysed the decision in Elango’s case and
for reasons stated supra, has held that the information sought for by the
petitioner are furnishable except for clause (f) of the first part relating to the
conduct details of the members of the Committee, the fragile reasons given in
the impugned order passed by the 1 st respondent for furnishing the information
cannot form the basis for rejection of the application of the 2 nd respondent.
27. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the petitioner to provide all the information sought for except for the
details relating to conduct as is sought for under clause (f) of the first part to the
2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
15.06.2026
Index : Yes / No
NHS/GLN
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
To
1. The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras
High Court, Madras.
2. The State Information Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Information Commission/
2nd Appellate Authority
No.19, Government Farm Village
(Pension Pay Office Backside)
Panepet, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.13842/2024
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
NHS/GLN
W.P. NO.13842 OF 2024
15.06.2026
27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
