REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009

Khanapuram Gandaiah     …  Petitioner

             Vs.

Administrative Officer & Ors.     …  Respondents

O R D E R

1. This special  leave petition has been filed against  the judgment and  

order dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 by the High  

Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh by which the writ  petition against  the order  of  

dismissal  of the petitioner’s  application and successive appeals under the  

Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the “RTI Act”) has been  

dismissed. In the said petition, the direction was sought by the Petitioner to  

the  Respondent  No.1  to  provide  information  as  asked  by  him  vide  his  

application dated 15.11.2006 from the Respondent No.4 – a Judicial Officer  

as for what reasons,  the Respondent No.4 had decided his Miscellaneous  

Appeal dishonestly.   

2. The  facts  and  circumstances  giving  rise  to  this  case  are,  that  the  

petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of the land in respect of  

which civil  suit  No.854 of 2002 was filed before Additional Civil  Judge,  

Ranga Reddy District praying for perpetual injunction by Dr. Mallikarjina  

Rao  against  the  petitioner  and  another,  from entering  into  the  suit  land.  

Application filed for interim relief in the said suit stood dismissed.  Being  

aggrieved, the plaintiff therein preferred CMA No.185 of 2002 and the same  

was also dismissed.    Two other  suits  were  filed in respect  of  the  same  

property impleading the Petitioner also as the defendant. In one of the suits  

i.e.  O.S.  No.875  of  2003,  the  Trial  Court  granted  temporary  injunction  

against the Petitioner.  Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred the CMA No.67  

of 2005, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court – Respondent No.4  

vide order dated 10.8.2006.     

3. Petitioner filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under Section 6 of the  

RTI  Act  before  the  Administrative  Officer-cum-Assistant  State  Public  

Information  Officer  (respondent  no.1)  seeking information to  the  queries  

mentioned  therein.  The  said  application  was  rejected  vide  order  dated  

23.11.2006 and an appeal  against  the said order was also dismissed vide  

order  dated  20.1.2007.  Second  Appeal  against  the  said  order  was  also  

2

dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission vide order  

dated 20.11.2007.  The petitioner challenged the said order before the High  

Court, seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1 to furnish the information  

as under what circumstances the Respondent No.4 had passed the Judicial  

Order dismissing the appeal against the interim relief granted by the Trial  

Court.  The Respondent No.4  had been impleaded as respondent  by name.  

The Writ Petition had been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that  

the information sought by the petitioner cannot be asked for under the RTI  

Act.   Thus,  the  application  was  not  maintainable.  More  so,  the  judicial  

officers  are  protected  by  the  Judicial  Officers’  Protection  Act,  1850  

(hereinafter called the “Act 1850”).   Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. V. Kanagaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner  

has  submitted  that  right  to  information  is  a  fundamental  right  of  every  

citizen.  The RTI Act does not provide for any  special protection to the  

Judges,  thus  petitioner  has  a  right  to  know  the  reasons  as  to  how  the  

Respondent No. 4 has decided his appeal in a particular manner. Therefore,  

the application filed by the petitioner was maintainable.   Rejection of the  

application by the Respondent No. 1 and Appellate authorities rendered the  

petitioner remediless. Petitioner vide application dated 15.11.2006 had asked  

3

as  under  what  circumstances  the  Respondent  No.4  ignored  the  written  

arguments and additional written arguments, as the ignorance of the same  

tantamount to judicial dishonesty, the Respondent No.4 omitted to examine  

the  fabricated  documents  filed  by  the  plaintiff;  and  for  what  reason  the  

respondent no.4 omitted to examine the documents filed by the petitioner.  

Similar information had been sought on other points.  

5. At the outset, it must be noted that the petitioner has not challenged  

the  order  passed  by  the  Respondent  No.  4.   Instead,  he  had  filed  the  

application  under  Section  6  of  the  RTI  Act  to  know why  and  for  what  

reasons Respondent No. 4 had come to a particular conclusion which was  

against the petitioner. The nature of the questions posed in the application  

was to the effect  why and for what reason Respondent No. 4 omitted to  

examine  certain  documents  and  why  he  came  to  such  a  conclusion.  

Altogether, the petitioner had sought answers for about ten questions raised  

in his application and most of the questions were to the effect as to why  

Respondent No. 4 had ignored certain documents and why he had not taken  

note of certain arguments advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.

4

6. Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) which  

provides:  

“information”  means  any  material  in  any  form,  including  records,  documents, memos, e-mails,  opinions, advices, press   releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers,   samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and   information relating to any private body which can be accessed   by a public authority under any other law for the time being in   force.”   

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can  

get  any  information  which  is  already  in  existence  and  accessible  to  the  

public authority under law.  Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is  

entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he  

cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars,  

orders,  etc.  have been passed,  especially  in  matters  pertaining  to judicial  

decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If  

any  party  feels  aggrieved  by  the  order/judgment  passed  by  a  judge,  the  

remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of  

appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can  

be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had  

come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain  

later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion.

5

7. Moreover, in the instant case, the petitioner submitted his application  

under  Section  6  of  the  RTI  Act  before  the  Administrative  Officer-cum-

Assistant State Public Information Officer seeking information in respect of  

the  questions  raised  in  his  application.  However,  the  Public  Information  

Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any  

information he could  have obtained under law.  Under Section 6 of the RTI  

Act,  an  applicant  is  entitled  to  get  only  such  information  which  can  be  

accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in  

force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have  

been  with  the  public  authority  nor  could  he  have  had  access  to  this  

information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to  

why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him. A  

judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been  

enumerated in the judgment or order. The application filed by the petitioner  

before the public authority is  per se illegal  and unwarranted.   A judicial  

officer is entitled to get protection and the object of the same is not to protect  

malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from the dangers to  

which  the  administration  of  justice  would  be  exposed  if  the  concerned  

judicial officers were subject to inquiry as to malice,  or to litigation with  

those whom their decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to  

6

this, it  would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary.  A judge  

should be free to make independent decisions.

8. As the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI Act, the High  

Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition.   

9. In  view  of  the  above,  the  Special  Leave  Petition  is  dismissed  

accordingly.

    ………………………….CJI.      (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

     …………………………….J.       (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, January 4, 2010

7