Madras High Court Says Judges' Salary Details Can Be Disclosed Under RTI Act

Salary of judges is paid from the Consolidated Fund of India, and citizens have the right to know the pay scale under the RTI Act, rules Madras High Court.

Key Highlights

• Madras High Court says judges' salary details are disclosable under RTI.

• Court rules salaries paid from the Consolidated Fund of India are public information.

• Section 8 of the RTI Act does not exempt judges' pay details.

• Registry directed to provide the information within two weeks.

In a significant ruling promoting transparency, the Madras High Court has held that the pay scale and salary details of judges are not exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Justice M. Dhandapani observed that judges receive their salaries from the Consolidated Fund of India, which is public money. Therefore, citizens have the right to access information regarding judges' pay scales, as such information is not protected under the exemption provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Court: Judges' Salaries Are Paid from Public Funds

While delivering the judgment, the Court stated that salary information is a matter of public record because judges are paid from public funds.

The Court observed:

"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 respondent, cannot be precluded from knowing the details. Therefore, there would be no embargo in providing the information as it is not exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act."

Background of the Case

The case arose after Akbar Ahamed filed an RTI application seeking information regarding the High Court of Madras (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-Person) Rules, 2019.

The applicant requested details including:

• Names and designations of members of the Party-in-Person Committee.

• Previous and present legal experience of committee members.

• Qualifications and expertise.

• Achievements in the legal field.

• Conduct details.

• Pay scale and salary details.

• Functions, powers and responsibilities of the Administrative Committee of the High Court.

High Court Registry Refused to Provide Information

The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Madras High Court rejected the RTI request.

The applicant challenged the decision before the appellate authority, which upheld the PIO's refusal.

Subsequently, the applicant approached the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, which directed the High Court Registry to provide the requested information.

The High Court Registry then challenged the Commission's order before the Madras High Court.

High Court Registry's Arguments

The Registry argued that:

• The requested information related to the internal administration of the High Court.

• Such information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

• Reliance was placed on the earlier decision in Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. K. Elango, later upheld by the Supreme Court, which held that vigilance enquiries and certain personal information unrelated to official duties were protected from disclosure.

Tamil Nadu Information Commission's Stand

The Tamil Nadu Information Commission argued that:

• The information sought did not fall under any exemption under the RTI Act.

• The information was not held in a fiduciary capacity.

• It did not involve personal information protected by law.

• The information could also be shared with Parliament or the State Legislature if sought.

The Commission therefore maintained that disclosure was legally permissible.

Court Finds Information Is Public in Nature

Justice M. Dhandapani observed that the requested information was already part of the public domain and did not involve any confidential administrative matter.

The Court held that details relating to:

• Constitution of the Party-in-Person Committee.

• Qualifications of its members.

• Administrative responsibilities.

• Salary and pay scales.

were not classified information.

The Court further noted that disclosing such information would not affect or hamper the functioning of the High Court.

No Confidentiality Involved

The Court emphasized that there was no element of confidentiality or sensitivity attached to the information sought.

It observed that the powers, responsibilities and functioning of the committees had already been clarified through various judicial decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Therefore, there was no legal justification for withholding such information under the RTI Act.

High Court Directs Registry to Provide Information

Dismissing the petition filed by the High Court Registry, the Madras High Court upheld the order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission.

The Court directed the Registry to furnish the requested information to the RTI applicant within two weeks.

Key Highlights

• Madras High Court held that judges' salary details are not exempt under the RTI Act.

• Salary paid from the Consolidated Fund of India is public information.

• Section 8 of the RTI Act does not bar disclosure of judges' pay scales.

• Information regarding the Party-in-Person Committee is also not confidential.

• High Court Registry directed to provide the requested information within two weeks.

• Court ruled that disclosure would not affect the administrative functioning of the High Court.

Case Details

Case Title: The High Court of Judicature at Madras v. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission & Another

Case Number: W.P. No. 13842 of 2024

Judge: Justice M. Dhandapani