High Court · 2025

W.P. No.22675 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08.07.2025CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICEANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANW.P.No.22675 of 2025C.MothichandS/o.(Late) R.Champalal Jain No.86, No.2 Road, Koranand, Mayiladuthurai-609 001.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Registrar General (Vigilance) Madras High Court, Chennai.2. The Registrar (Administration/PIO) Madras High Court, Chennai.3. The Assistant Registrar (Admn.II) Madras High Court, Chennai.Respondent(s)Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to furnish the copy of the report received from the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam and the explanation received from the concerned Judicial Officer pursuant to the petitioner Sworn Affidavit-cum-Complaint dated 13.11.2021 submitted __________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.22675 of 2025on 16.11.2021 and the copy of the order passed on the petitioner complaint dated 13.11.2021 to enable the petitioner for proceed further in the said matter.For Petitioner(s):Mr.M.Arvind KumarFor Respondent(s):Mr. Karthik RanganathanORDER(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan,J.)Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to furnish a copy of the report received from the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam and the explanation received from the Judicial Officer concerned with respect to the complaint dated 13.11.2021 lodged by petitioner and the copy of the order passed thereon.2. According to petitioner, he had filed a complaint against the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mayiladuthurai, alleging inaction and delay in disposing of criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in C.C.No.202 of 2016. He would further state in the complaint that because of the delay, accused had died and, therefore, justice was denied to him.__________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.22675 of 20253. On his complaint, the Registry had sought remarks from the learned Principal District Judge and explanation from the Judicial Officer concerned. Registry had circulated the file to the Portfolio Judges (Judges of this Court, who were in-charge of the District). Based on the observations/notings of the Portfolio Judges made after considering the report of the Principal District Judge and the explanation offered by the Judicial Officer concerned, the Registry had communicated to the petitioner herein that further action was directed to be dropped.4. Petitioner thereafter sought documents, namely, (i) report received from the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam; and (ii) the explanation received from the Judicial Officer concerned.5. The Registry, by order dated 29.11.2023, declined to furnish those documents sought by petitioner relying upon a judgment of this court in the case of The Registrar General of High Court, Madras v K.Elango1. 6. Mr.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the judgment in K.Elango's case (supra) would not be applicable to the 12013 (2) CWC 56 (DB)__________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.22675 of 2025facts of this case, as the information sought in K.Elango's case (supra) was general information and documents related thereto, whereas in this case specific information with regard to the disposal of his complaint was sought.7. Per contra, Mr.Karthik, learned counsel for respondents, submitted that the information sought pertains to administrative decisions, internal discussions and notings in the files and, therefore, it cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. Though the information sought in the case of K.Elango (supra) was general in nature, the observations in the judgment make it clear that administrative decisions, internal discussions, deliberations and file notings cannot be shared or brought under Section 2(j) of the Act. In the judgment it is further stated that the secrecy and privacy of the internal working process of the High Court on the administrative side would be jeopardised, if documents such as those sought by petitioners are furnished, besides resulting in invasion of privacy of the individuals concerned. Paragraphs 59 to 61 of the said judgment read as under:__________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.22675 of 2025“59. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of respective contentions and on going through the contents of the application dated 01.11.2010 filed by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, this Court is of the considered view that the information sought for by him in Serial Nos. 1 to 9 pertaining to the internal delicate functioning/ administration of the High Court besides the same relate to invasion of privacy of respective individuals if the informations so asked for are furnished and more so, the informations sought for have no relationship to any public activity or interest. Moreover, the informations sought for by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, through his application dated 01.11.2010 addressed to the Public Information Officer of the High Court, Chennai, are not to a fuller extent open to public domain. Added further, if the informations sought for by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, through his letter dated 01.11.2010 addressed to the Public Information Officer of High Court, are divulged, then, it will open floodgates/Pandora Box compelling the Petitioner/High Court to supply the informations sought for by the concerned Requisitionists as a matter of routine, without any rhyme or reasons/restrictions as the case may be. Therefore, some self restrictions are to be imposed in regard to the supply of informations in this regard. As a matter of fact, the Notings, Jottings, Administrative Letters, Intricate Internal Discussions, Deliberations etc. of the Petitioner/High Court cannot be brought under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in our considered opinion of this Court. Also that, if the informations relating to Serial Nos. 1 to 9 mentioned in the application of the 1st Respondent/Applicant dated 01.11.2010 are directed to be furnished or supplied with, then, certainly, it will impede and hinder the regular, smooth and proper functioning of the Institution viz., High Court (an independent authority under the Constitution of India, free from Executive or Legislature), as opined by this Court. As such, a Saner Counsel/Balancing Act is to be adopted in matters relating to the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005, so that an adequate freedom and inbuilt safeguard can be provided to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court [competent authority and public authority as per Section 2(e)(iii) and 2(h)(a) of the Act 22 of 2005] in exercising his discretionary powers either to supply the information or to deny the information, as prayed for by the Applicants/Requisitionists concerned.60. Apart from the above, if the informations requested by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, based on his letter dated 01.11.2010, are supplied with, then, it will have an adverse impact on the regular and normal, serene functioning of the High Court's Office on the Administrative side. Therefore, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the 1st Respondent/Applicant is not entitled to be supplied with __________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.22675 of 2025the informations/details sought for by him, in his Application dated 01.11.2010 addressed to the Public Information Officer of the High Court, Madras under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Even on the ground of (i) maintaining confidentiality; (ii) based on the reason that the private or personal information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005; and (iii) also under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act in lieu of fiduciary relationship maintained by the High Court, the request of the 1st Respondent/Applicant, through his Letter dated 01.11.2010/Appeal dated 20.12.2010 under Section 19 of the Act to the Writ Petitioner/Appellate Authority, cannot be acceded to by this Court. Further, we are of the considered view that the 1st Respondent/Applicant has no locus standi to seek for the details sought for by him, as stated supra, in a wholesale, omnibus and mechanical fashion in the subject matter in issue, (either as a matter of right/routine under the Right to Information Act) because of the simple reason that he has no enforceable legal right. Also, we opine that the 1st Respondent/Applicant's requests, through his Application dated 01.11.2010 and his Appeal dated 20.12.2010, suffer from want of bonafides (notwithstanding the candid fact that Section 6 of the Right to Information Act does not either overtly or covertly refers to the ‘concept of Locus’).61. To put it differently, if the informations sought for by the 1st Respondent/Applicant, through his letter dated 01.11.2010/Appeal dated 20.12.2010, are divulged or furnished by the Office of the High Court (on administrative side), then, the secrecy and privacy of the internal working process may get jeopardised, besides the furnishing of said informations would result in invasion of unwarranted and uncalled for privacy of individuals concerned. Even the disclosure of informations pertaining to departmental enquiries in respect of Disciplinary Actions initiated against the Judicial Officers/Officials of the Subordinate Court or the High Court will affect the facile, smooth and independent running of the administration of the High Court, under the Constitution of India. Moreover, as per Section 2(e) of the read with Section 28 of the Right to Information Act, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court is empowered to frame rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. In this regard, we point out that ‘Madras High Court Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2007’ have been framed [vide R.O.C. No. 2636-A/06/F1 - SRO C-3/2008] in Tamil Nadu Gazette, No. 20, dated 21.05.2008, Pt.III, S.2. Also, a Notification, in Roc. No. 976 A/2008/RTI dated 18.11.2008, has been issued by this Court to the said Rules, by bringing certain amendments in regard to the Name and Designation of the Officers __________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.22675 of 2025mentioned therein, the same has come into force from 18.11.2008.”[emphasis supplied]9. In this case, we find that what was sought by petitioner would squarely fall within the documents which cannot be shared in view of the judgment of this Court in K.Elango's case (supra). Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (SUNDER MOHAN, J.) 08.07.2025 Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Nosasi/arsTo:1. The Registrar General (Vigilance) Madras High Court, Chennai.2. The Registrar (Administration/PIO) Madras High Court, Chennai.3. The Assistant Registrar (Admn.II) Madras High Court, Chennai.__________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.22675 of 2025THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE ANDSUNDER MOHAN,J.(sasi) W.P.No.22675 of 2025 08.07.2025__________Page 8 of 8