Make probe report against judicial officer public: CIC

November 14, 2008: The Times of India

New Delhi: Brushing aside claims by Delhi High Court that a vigilance probe against a judicial officer is an ‘‘internal matter between an employer and an employee’’ and therefore confidential, the Central Information Commission has asked it to make the probe report public.

The report was prepared by an inspector on the orders of registrar (vigilance) of HC, who in turn, initiated a probe against a metropolitan magistrate after allegations of misconduct were made by one Pratap Singh Gandas in 2004.

But when Pratap Singh sought a copy of the probe findings, HC denied him, invoking Rule 5 (a) of Delhi HC (RTI) rules. The rules say an information seeker can only ask for information which is already in the ‘‘public domain’’ and has been severely criticized by CIC and RTI activists for diluting provisions of RTI Act, even negating it in certain cases. Since the probe report was confidential, HC argued, it was exempt from disclosing it to Singh. ‘‘Inquiry and probe against an officer is an internal matter between employer and employee and disclosure, thereof, is not in public domain,’’ HC told CIC opposing Singh’s appeal in CIC.

Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, however, took a dim view of HC’s line of argument and countered, ‘‘Information with regard to public activity, which is an investigation, ordered by an institution as august as HC cannot be construed to be a private activity,’’

It was left to CIC to also point out that analogy of a private employer- employee relationship didn’t hold in this case as ‘‘judges are public persons and hold public posts so they can’t be said to be within the purview of a private employer/employee.’’ The apex information body also wondered how a metropolitan magistrate could be seen as an employee of HC, as seemed to be claimed by the court, when ‘‘MM’s are appointed by the State government and are its employees.’’

In fact, HC went to the extent of viewing Singh’s demand as ‘‘attempts to browbeat the court’’, and equated it to something which went against State interest, so exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) of RTI Act.