Madras HC Must Disclose Party-in-Person Committee Details Under RTI, Rules Single Judge

Justice M. Dhandapani holds that the High Court cannot shield information about its Party-in-Person Committee and Administrative Committee under Section 8 exemptions, distinguishing an earlier Division Bench ruling on vigilance records.

In an unusual proceeding where the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenged a direction issued against its own Registry, Justice M. Dhandapani, sitting singly, has dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tamil Nadu Information Commission’s order requiring the High Court to furnish information about the composition, qualifications and functions of its Party-in-Person Committee and Administrative Committee. The judgment, dated 15 June 2026, draws a sharp line between vigilance and disciplinary records — which an earlier Division Bench had shielded from disclosure — and administrative details about constitutional functionaries that are already partly accessible in the public domain. The ruling requires the Registry to provide almost all of the requested information within two weeks, carving out only conduct details of committee members.

The RTI Application and Its Journey to the High Court

Akbar Ahamed, the second respondent, filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Public Information Officer of the High Court on 28 July 2021. He sought two broad categories of information. The first related to The High Court of Madras (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-Person) Rules, 2019: specifically the names and designations of committee members, their experience, achievements, educational qualifications, field of expertise, conduct details, and pay scale. The second category asked for the functions, responsibilities, powers and jurisdictional limits of the Administrative Committee of the High Court.

The Public Information Officer rejected the application, relying on a Division Bench judgment in The Registrar General, High Court of Madras v. K. Elango & Anr. (W.P. No.20485/2012, dated 17.12.2013). The first appellate authority confirmed that rejection. Ahamed then moved the Tamil Nadu Information Commission in second appeal as S.A.17084/A/2021. On 18 October 2023, the Commission directed the High Court to provide the information and file a compliance report. Aggrieved, the High Court filed W.P. No.13842 of 2024 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash that Commission order.

The Exemption Argument and the Division Bench Precedent

The High Court’s senior counsel argued that the information fell within the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The core submission was that the Division Bench in Elango had already held that information relating to the internal administration of the High Court, including employee matters, partook the character of “personal information” with no public interest, and that those findings — affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) CC No.17294/2013 on 4 October 2013 — were binding. Providing the information, it was argued, would gravely prejudice the functioning of the Court.

Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Information Commission countered that Elango had dealt specifically with vigilance enquiries against judicial officers — a materially different category. The information Ahamed sought did not fall under any of the Section 8(1) exemptions. It was not held in a fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e), and it was not personal information under Section 8(1)(j) because the proviso to that clause expressly states that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

How the Court Distinguished Elango

Justice Dhandapani first set out the preamble and scheme of the RTI Act, noting that the statute was enacted to promote transparency and accountability and that so long as there is no conflicting interest and security is not jeopardised, citizens must receive all information at the disposal of a public authority.

He then read Elango carefully. The Division Bench in that case had dealt with a 2010 application seeking, among other things, statistics on complaints of bribe in the subordinate judiciary, information about departmental enquiries, and details of disciplinary actions against judicial officers. It was that category of sensitive vigilance and personal service-record information that attracted Section 8(1)(e) as a fiduciary relationship and Section 8(1)(j) as personal information with no public interest. The Division Bench had also warned against opening a “floodgates/Pandora Box” by treating internal administrative deliberations, notings and correspondence as disclosable under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act.

Justice Dhandapani accepted that Elango was correctly decided on its own facts. However, he held that the ratio did not extend to Ahamed’s application. The Party-in-Person Committee is composed of Judges of the High Court, not employees in any conventional employer-employee relationship. The names of those Judges are published on the High Court’s own website. Their qualifications, experience and field of practice are also publicly accessible there. The constitution and composition of the Committee is an administrative act, not classified information. Parting with it would not jeopardise the administrative functioning of the Court.

On pay scale, the Court was categorical: Judges draw salaries from the Consolidated Fund of India, and citizens cannot be precluded from knowing how public funds are spent. That information is not exempted under Section 8.

On the functions, responsibilities and jurisdictional limits of the Administrative Committee, the Court held that these are constitutionally prescribed and demarcated by decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. There is no element of confidentiality or sensitivity. The High Court could not seek shelter under Section 8 to withhold them.

The Court also dealt separately with the conduct details of committee members sought under clause (f) of the first part of the application. It held that such details would simply not be available with the High Court in any identifiable form and, therefore, the petitioner could legitimately say it was not in a position to furnish that specific item.

The Section 8(1)(j) Proviso

A separate thread in the reasoning concerned Section 8(1)(j), under which personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity is exempted. Justice Dhandapani pointed to the proviso: “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.” He held that the information Ahamed sought was of a kind that could not be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature and therefore no citizen could be denied it either. The High Court’s reliance on the main clause of Section 8(1)(j) was therefore misplaced when the proviso applied.

The Impugned Commission Order

Having found that the information was furnishable, Justice Dhandapani also addressed the quality of reasoning in the Commission’s own order. He noted that the reasons given in the Commission’s impugned order dated 18 October 2023 were, on their own, fragile and could not form a durable basis for compelling disclosure. But since the Court had independently analysed Elango and confirmed the information was not exempted, the weakness of the Commission’s reasoning did not warrant quashing the direction to furnish information. The outcome was correct even if the reasoning needed supplementing.

The Court was direct: the High Court Registry had committed a clear misreading of Elango by applying it to information that was neither sensitive nor classified and that involved no fiduciary relationship. That erroneous reliance could not be sustained.

Order

W.P. No.13842 of 2024 was disposed of on 15 June 2026. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, represented by its Registrar General, was directed to provide all the information sought by Akbar Ahamed except the conduct details of the committee members sought under clause (f) of the first part of his RTI application. The information must be furnished within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The connected miscellaneous petition W.M.P. No.14999 of 2024 was closed. No order as to costs was made.