Reimbursement of Supreme Court judges’ medical bills exempt from RTI, rules Delhi High Court; Sidharth Luthra appears for SC

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that information regarding the reimbursement of Supreme Court Judges’ medical bills need not be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The single-Judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru set aside a 2012 Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing that records of such bills of judges of the Supreme Court (whether serving or retired) should be maintained separately for each judge..In 2010, Subhash Chandra Agarwal had filed an application under the RTI Act seeking details of medical facilities availed by individual judges in the last three years. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) rejected the application on the grounds that it was personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. An appeal was preferred to the First Appellate Authority, which was also rejected. Later, the CIC directed the CPIO to disclose the requested information..The CPIO provided the total amount reimbursed on medical treatment from the budget grant for three years in respect of Judges and employees of the Supreme Court and submitted that Judge-wise information was not maintained as the same was not required to be maintained. Dissatisfied with the information provided, the applicant appealed to the CIC, which passed its 2012 order..In the present writ petition against the CIC order filed in the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court (Petitioner) was represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra along with advocates Maneesha Dhir, KPS Kohli, Satyam Thareja and Neha Singh. The Respondents were represented by Pranav Sachdeva, appearing for Prashant Bhushan..The counsel for the Petitioner argued that only existing information could be directed to be disclosed under the Act and that public authorities could not be directed to create, hold and maintain information in any other manner. It was also argued that the CIC order impinges upon the power entrusted upon the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution to make suitable rules for regulating its practice and procedure..The counsel for the Respondents, however, contended that the information exists and is held by the public authority but is not being compiled or kept such that it is accessible in a transparent manner. Moreover, it was argued that the CIC, under the Act, has the power to change the processes of maintenance and management of records. Lastly, the need to ensure transparency and avoid misuse or abuse of authority was stressed upon..However, Justice Bakhru held that,.“…information relating to the medical records would be personal information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. The medical bills would indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would clearly be an invasion of the privacy.”.The Court also declared the CIC order to be “erroneous”, stating that it completely overlooked the fact that,.“…medical records are not liable to be disclosed unless it is shown that the same is in larger public interest.”.The Court also noted that though the information sought is available, the counsel for the Respondent failed to establish the larger interest that would benefit the public, and as a result, allowed the petition and set aside the CIC order..Earlier this month, Justice Bakhru had upheld a CIC order to disclose information regarding reserved judgments.