KHANAPURAM GANDAIAHversusADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS.

                      [2010] 1 S.C.R. 1


                 KHANAPURAM GANDAIAH                              A
                               v.
           ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER & ORS.
     (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34868 of 2009)
                      JANUARY 4, 2010
                                                                  B
             [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND
                  DR. 8$. CHAUHAN, J.]

     Right to Information Act, 2005:
                                                                 c
      ss. 2(f) and 6 - 'Information' - Application uls 6 before
Administrative Officer-cum-Assistant State Public Information
 Officer, asking as for what reasons a Judicial Officer had
dismissed a miscellaneous appeal - HELD: Under s. 6, an
applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be
                                                                   0
accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the
time being in force - The answers sought by petitioner in the
application could not have been with the public authority nor
could he have access to the information - A judge speaks
through his judgments and orders passed by him - He is not E
bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to
such a conclusion - If any party feels aggrieved, the remedy
available is to challenge the decision by way of appeal,
revision or any other legally permissible mode - No litigant
can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what
reason the judge had came to a particular conclusion - F
Application filed by the petitioner before the public authority
is per se illegal and unwarranted - A Judicial Officer is entitled
to protection and the object of the same is to protect public
from the dangers to which the administration of justice would
be exposed if judicial officers were exposed to inquiry as to G
malice or to litigation with those whom their decision might
offend - If any thing is done contrary to this, it would certainly
affect the Independence of the judiciary - "A judge should be
free to make decisions - As the petitioner has misused the \
                                1                                  H
    2       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A provisions of the RT/ Act, High Court rightly dismissed his writ
  petition - Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 -
  Independence of judiciary.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
B   34868 of 2009.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 24.4.2009 of the High
    Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
    Petition No. 28810 of 2008.

c       V. Kanagraj, Parmanand Gaur for the Petitioner.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered

                             ORDER

D       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
E 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,
F 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
G 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
H No.185 of 2002 and the same was also dismissed. Two other
   KHANAPURAM GANDAIAH v. ADMINISTRATIVE                       3
             OFFICER & ORS.
suits were filed in respect of the same property impleading the     A
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.                 B

      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 C
appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order
dated 20.1.2007. Second Appeal against the said order was
also 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 D
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 E
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, F
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    G
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            H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [201 O] 1 S.C.R.


A authorities rendered the petitioner remediless. Petitioner vide
  application dated 15.11.2006 had asked 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E No. 4 had ignored certain documents and why he had not taken
  note of certain arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel.

         6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section
    2(f) which provides:
F       "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
G       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
H and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course,
   KHANAPURAM GANDAIAH v. ADMINISTRATIVE                       5
             OFFICER & ORS.
under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the A
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/ B
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 concrusion. A c
judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had
 come to such a conclusion.

      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        D
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          E
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         F
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   G
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     H
    6       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A decisions might offend. If anything is done contrary to this, it
  would certainly affect the independence of:the judiciary. A
  judge should be free to make independent d~isions.

         8. As the petitioner has misused the provisions of the RTI
    Act, the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition.
8
        9. In view of the above, the Special Leave Petition is
    dismissed accordingly.
                                                    /


    R.P.                       Special Leave Petition dismissed.