Photo: Delhi High Court
|Author: Hency Kushwah|
When the System Turns the Question on Itself
In a system built on accountability, the most uncomfortable question is often the most important one: who holds the judiciary accountable?
The recent developments involving the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court have brought this question back into sharp focus. At the heart of the issue lies the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the judiciary, specifically, whether information relating to judges and internal court functioning can be disclosed to the public.
This is not merely a technical legal dispute. It is a confrontation between two competing constitutional values: the public’s right to know and the judiciary’s need to function without fear or external pressure.
Delhi High Court’s Expanding View of Transparency
Over time, the Delhi High Court has shown a noticeable shift towards strengthening transparency within judicial institutions. Its approach suggests that when courts demand accountability from the executive and legislature, they cannot claim complete insulation for themselves.
The push has been particularly visible in matters involving administrative functioning of courts, including issues surrounding disclosure of judges’ asset declarations, collegium-related materials, and internal processes that shape judicial appointments and decisions. The underlying logic is simple but powerful: public confidence in the judiciary is not sustained by opacity, but by demonstrable openness where it matters. However, this expanding interpretation of transparency has not gone unquestioned. It has instead triggered a deeper institutional response from the Supreme Court, which appears wary of the consequences of opening the judiciary’s internal workings too widely.
Supreme Court’s Caution: Transparency Cannot Become Exposure
The Supreme Court’s response is rooted in restraint rather than rejection. It is not denying that the judiciary falls within the ambit of RTI. That question was already settled in the landmark ruling of Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), where the Court held that even the office of the Chief Justice of India is subject to the transparency law.
But what the Court is now emphasizing is the limit of that transparency. The concern is not about disclosure itself, but about the nature and extent of what is being disclosed. Judicial functioning, especially in areas like collegium deliberations, relies heavily on candid discussions, dissenting opinions, and internal disagreements. If these processes are exposed in real time or without adequate safeguards, the Court fears that decision-making may become guarded, strategic, or even defensive.
This is where the Supreme Court draws its line. Transparency, in its view, must not transform into surveillance of judicial thought processes. The institution cannot afford to function under a constant shadow of potential disclosure that alters how judges think, write, and decide.
The Invisible Layer: Privacy Within Public Office
What complicates the debate further is the element of privacy. Judges are public functionaries, but they are not stripped of their fundamental rights. The disclosure of personal details, financial information, or even certain professional communications raises legitimate concerns about intrusion.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to privacy, now firmly embedded under Article 21, cannot be casually overridden in the name of transparency. Every disclosure must pass a threshold one that examines whether the information genuinely serves public interest or merely satisfies public curiosity. This distinction is crucial. Without it, the RTI mechanism risks becoming a tool not of accountability, but of exposure, where the personal and professional boundaries of judges are blurred beyond necessity.
A System Under Strain: Why This Conflict Matters Now
This institutional tension is emerging at a time when the judiciary is already under intense public scrutiny. Questions around collegium opacity, selective listing of cases, and delays in judicial processes have steadily eroded unquestioned faith in the system.
Against this backdrop, demands for transparency are not surprising they are inevitable. But the judiciary’s response indicates a deeper anxiety: that in attempting to correct one problem, it may inadvertently create another. If every internal process is opened up without a structured framework, the judiciary risks losing the very independence that allows it to function as a neutral arbiter. At the same time, if it resists transparency too strongly, it risks reinforcing the perception of an institution unwilling to be accountable.
The Real Question: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?
What emerges from this conflict is not a clear answer, but a more complex question. The debate is no longer about whether transparency is necessary, it is about how much transparency is sustainable.
The judiciary is not an ordinary public institution. Its strength lies in its ability to decide without fear or favour. Yet its legitimacy depends on public trust, and trust cannot survive in complete opacity. The challenge, therefore, is to design a system where transparency strengthens the institution without destabilizing it. This would require clearly defined disclosure norms, independent oversight in sensitive matters, and a consistent application of the public interest test. Without such guardrails, the system risks swinging between two extremes, secrecy and overexposure, both equally damaging in the long run.
Conclusion: Between Secrecy and Scrutiny
The current standoff between the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court is not a breakdown, it is a recalibration. It reflects an institution trying to define its own boundaries in an era where information is power and transparency is expectation. The judiciary cannot remain entirely shielded, nor can it afford to be completely exposed. Its credibility will ultimately depend on how it navigates this middle ground.
Because in the end, justice is not only about decisions delivered in courtrooms. It is also about the confidence people place in the system that delivers them, and that confidence is built not in darkness, but in carefully measured light.
