Punjab and Haryana HC stays order on plea seeking info on complaints against judges

“Till the next date of hearing, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed,” the bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said on July 5, issuing notice to the CIO for August 10.

The joint registrar and PIO of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had filed a petition against a February 8 CIO order under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein the non-disclosure of information by the petitioner in an order dated September 3, 2019, and the first appellate authority under the Act in an order dated October 1, 2019, was held to be legally untenable. This was related to a specific query in an RTI application dated August 5, 2019. The PIO was directed to supply the information in a time-bound manner.

On August 5, 2019, Manish Vashisht, an advocate at Narnaul, Haryana, filed an application before the PIO, seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005, on complaints received since 2009 against the judges of the Haryana lower courts, Punjab lower courts and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Vashisht sought details like the number of receipts, the status of the complaints, the action taken, and the time limit to decide a complaint.

According to the petitioner, in a reply dated September 3, 2019, the points where information was not supplied were duly explained to Vashisht. However, he filed an appeal dated September 17, 2019 under the RTI Act, which was taken up by the first appellate authority of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Vashisht’s appeal was dismissed on October 1, 2019 under Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal and held that Vashisht has no right under the 2005 Act to seek third-party information, as the information sought was personal in nature, and also that he had failed to explain how disclosure of such information would serve any public interest.

In December 2019, Vashisht filed an appeal before the CIO against the first appellate authority’s decision. Hearing the appeal on February 8 this year, the CIO upheld the PIO’s response on three queries but held that denial of information pertaining to Query No 3 – related to information of complaints against judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court since 2009 – was not legally tenable. The CIO also issued directions to the PIO to send a revised reply with respect to Query No 3, furnishing details of total number of complaints received and disposed of.

The PIO, meanwhile, challenged the CIO order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the high court bench hearing the matter stayed the order till the next hearing.