Senior IFS Officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi Secures Landmark RTI Order: Uttarakhand SIC Directs High Court to Disclose Complaints Against Subordinate Judges
In a landmark decision aimed at strengthening transparency and accountability in the judiciary, the State Information Commission (SIC) of Uttarakhand has directed the Uttarakhand High Court to disclose information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding complaints and disciplinary actions against judicial officers serving in subordinate courts.
The ruling was delivered in response to a petition filed by Sanjiv Chaturvedi, a 2002-batch senior Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer currently posted in Haldwani, who had challenged the high court’s refusal to provide the requested information.
Background: RTI Application Filed by Sanjiv Chaturvedi
In May 2023, Chaturvedi submitted an RTI application seeking comprehensive data on complaints and disciplinary proceedings involving subordinate court judges. His queries included:
Identification of the competent authority authorized to receive complaints of corruption or misconduct.
The total number of complaints registered between January 2020 and April 2025.
The number of cases where disciplinary or criminal action was recommended or initiated.
High Court’s Initial Refusal
In June 2023, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Uttarakhand High Court responded but declined to provide full details, citing confidentiality concerns and the involvement of third parties. Chaturvedi’s subsequent appeal to the first appellate authority also failed to secure relief.
During the SIC hearing, the high court PIO argued that information could only be shared in relation to specific complaints and that broader statistical data would require sanction from the Chief Justice.
SIC’s Landmark Order
After hearing both sides, Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi ruled that the number of complaints and the actions taken must be disclosed, subject to approval by the competent authority. The SIC further directed the high court to update the commission on subsequent steps taken to comply with the disclosure order.
This directive is being hailed as a significant step toward greater transparency in the functioning of district-level judiciary, enabling the public to understand how complaints against subordinate judges are processed and resolved.
Concerns Raised by Chaturvedi and His Counsel
Chaturvedi’s lawyer, Sudershan Goel, underscored the importance of transparency, citing examples of alleged misuse of judicial procedures:
Applications filed by Chaturvedi in lower courts were sometimes adjudicated with erroneous recording of presence.
Copies of pending criminal proceedings were allegedly supplied to third parties, causing personal harm.
Certain Supreme Court-established legal principles were reportedly ignored.
Goel also highlighted a case where a false complaint with forged signatures was filed against Chaturvedi, but the FIR registration was declined, raising serious concerns about adherence to basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. He described the SIC’s ruling as a landmark order that would bolster judicial accountability and enhance public access to information in Uttarakhand.
Wider Context: Judicial RTI Disclosures
The Uttarakhand SIC’s ruling comes amid a broader trend of courts resisting disclosure of complaints against judges. For instance, in 2024, the Delhi High Court declined to provide statistical data on complaints filed against district-level judges since 2015, with the PIO stating that no such data was maintained.
This latest order in Uttarakhand is therefore being viewed as a precedent-setting development in the ongoing debate over judicial transparency and accountability.
