The Supreme Court told the Delhi High Court that it does not maintain judge-wise records of corruption or misconduct complaints. The Court said collecting such information would require diverting significant resources and may also be exempt under the RTI Act.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that it does not keep judge-specific records about allegations of corruption or misconduct. The submission was made during the hearing of a case related to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, where a journalist had sought details about complaints made against a High Court judge.
Advocate Rukhmini Bobde appeared for the Supreme Court’s public information officer and informed the Court that even collecting such information now would be very difficult because it would require a lot of time and resources. She explained that the Supreme Court does not maintain such detailed records separately for each judge, and gathering this information now would divert significant administrative resources.
The matter was being heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in the Delhi High Court. The case was filed by journalist Saurav Das, who had challenged the denial of information under the RTI Act. He had asked whether any complaints of corruption or misconduct were received against Justice T Raja during his tenure as a judge of the Madras High Court.
During the hearing, Advocate Bobde argued that such information may also be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information from being disclosed if it does not serve a larger public interest.
ALSO READ: What Have You Been Doing for 20 Years?: Delhi HC Slams MCD Over RTI Violations
She told the Court,
“Specifically, about corruption and misconduct, we don’t maintain of any judge. So, this is now a fishing and roving inquiry and we cannot divert our resources to collate this information for him,”
Bobde said.
She further argued that even if such information existed, it may not necessarily be disclosed under the RTI Act because it relates to specific individuals and many types of complaints are often made against judges. She explained that the complaints received by the Collegium are different from the final decision taken by the Collegium.
She stated,
“Inputs are quite different from the decision itself…So, the Collegium decision is one thing. But the complaints they [Collegium] received – whatever supporting documents they have received in favour of that decision – that is not subject to public scrutiny whatsoever,”
Bobde underscored.
Bobde also informed the Court that the Supreme Court had already provided data to Parliament regarding the total number of complaints received in the office of the Chief Justice of India over the last ten years, because that data is available in consolidated form. However, the Court does not maintain detailed judge-wise records of such complaints.
On the other side, Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for journalist Saurav Das and argued that the information being asked for cannot be treated as personal information because it involves public interest. He argued that if there are complaints of corruption or misconduct against a judge, the public has the right to know how such complaints are handled.
Bhushan also pointed out that the Supreme Court had already shared certain information with the government, which was later presented in Parliament. This information included the total number of complaints received in the office of the Chief Justice of India against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025.
However, Bobde clarified that the information shared with Parliament only included the total number of complaints and not the details or nature of the complaints.
Bhushan further argued that even if many complaints are false or frivolous, the office of the Chief Justice of India is still responsible for examining them and taking appropriate action. After examining the complaints, the office can always say that the allegations are false if that is the case, he said.
After hearing both sides for some time, the Delhi High Court adjourned the matter to next month. The Court also asked both parties to suggest a proper mechanism that can protect the reputation of honest judges while also ensuring that the public is informed about how complaints against judges are dealt with.
The case raises an important question about transparency in the judiciary and the balance between the right to information and the protection of the reputation and privacy of judges. The Court is now expected to consider possible mechanisms that can ensure accountability without harming judicial independence or the dignity of the institution.
Click Here to Read More Reports on RTI Case
![[Badlapur Assault Case] "Took Action Only After Public Outcry": Bombay HC Slams Police](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-57.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
