The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking disclosure of information about reimbursement of medical expenses of Supreme Court judges. The Court refused to divulge this information, stating it would violate the privacy of judges, despite the expenditures being made from public funds. Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that as public servants spending taxpayer money, the judiciary should be as transparent as it expects other public authorities to be. By dismissing the petition, the Court undermines transparency and accountability in its own functioning.

1. CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM
6/6 Basement, Jangpura B, NEW DELHI-1100014
judicialreforms@gmail.com , www.judicialreforms.org
Patrons: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P.B.Sawant, Justice H. Suresh, Shri Shanti Bhushan, Shri K.G. Kannabiran, Shri Ajit
Bhattacharjea, Prof. B.B.Pande, Admiral R.H. Tahiliani, Dr. Bhaskar Rao, Ms. Arundhati Roy, Dr. Banwari Lal
Sharma, ShriPradipPrabhu, Prof BabuMathew, Dr Baba Adhav, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Shri Mihir Desai, Shri Manoj
Mitta
Working Committee: Prashant Bhushan, , Pranav Sachdeva, Venkatesh Sundaram, InduPrakash Singh, D. Leena, Devvrat,
Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Cheryl D’Souza
PRESS RELEASE
SUPREME COURT REFUSES INFORMATION ON MEDICAL EXPENSES OF
SUPREME COURT JUDGES
Today the Supreme Court dismissed a petition against the judgment of the High
Court holding that the information about reimbursement of medical expenditure of
Supreme Court judges as their ‘personal information’ not accessible under Right to
Information (RTI) Act.
Supreme Court refused to divulge information about medical expenses of Supreme
Court judges stating that this would violate the privacy of the judges.
This order was passed today despite the fact that the expenditure is made out of
public funds and people have a right to know how the tax-payer’s money is being
spent.
Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioner pointed out that Supreme Court ought
not to be reluctant to disclose the information just because it concerns the judges. He
said that there is a public impression that judiciary is not willing to follow the same
standards of transparency and accountability, that it expects from other public
authorities and public servants.
Bhushan said that unfortunately judges acting as a judge in their own cause are
deciding whether information concerning themselves is to be divulged or not, and are
overturning orders of the Central Information Commission which has directed
disclosure of information concerning appointment, transfers and medical expenses of
judges.

2. The above is doubly unfortunate because the Right to Information Act was enacted
pursuant to several judgments of the Supreme Court saying that right to know is a
fundamental right and people have a right to know every public act. Supreme Court
had also went to the extent of directing all election candidates (who were not even
public servants) to disclose their and their family member’s financial assets, their
criminal antecedents and educational qualifications.
Bhushan submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act only permits non-disclosure of
“personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or
which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual”. Thus
information concerning expenditure of public money cannot be exempted from
disclosure since it cannot be said to be information which has no relationship with
public activity or public interest.
Bhushan stated that if this information is denied, then similar information about
medical expenses of ministers, legislators and bureaucrats would also become
inaccessible to the public, which would harm public interest. Huge sum of public
money is spent and misused by politicians for their medical expenditure, which ought
to be known to the public.
It was pointed out to the Supreme Court that a refusal to entertain this petition would
set a bad precedent and would create public disquiet. However, the Supreme Court
still dismissed the petition. This shows that extent to which the judiciary goes to
scuttle transparency and accountability in its functioning.
Prashant Bhushan
Convener, CJAR