The Supreme Court today refused to divulge details regarding medical expenses incurred by Supreme Court judges..A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy refused to entertain an appeal from a Delhi High Court judgment which had held that information pertaining to medical expenses incurred by Supreme Court judges are outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)..The petitioner, Subhash Chandra Agarwal, had filed an RTI query seeking details of medical expenses incurred by Supreme Court judges. The Public information Officer of Supreme Court had denied him the same whereupon he preferred an appeal to the First Appellate Authority and then to the Central Information Commission (CIC)..The CIC allowed his appeal but the Delhi High Court overturned the ruling resulting in this appeal before the Supreme Court. The matter was argued today by advocate Prashant Bhushan..Bhushan pointed out that the Supreme Court should not be reluctant to disclose the information just because it concerns the judges..“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, bureaucrats and public servants.”.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..Chief Justice Dattu said that disclosure of the information sought for will violate the privacy of judges..“Once you give the bills and the list of medicines one can easily make out what type of ailment judge is suffering from. Where does it stop? Please respect the privacy of judges.”.Bhushan, however, said that he was not asking for the details of medicines but only the expenses incurred by each judge..“It is my tax money that is being utilised for medical expenses by judges. I am entitled to know how it is being spent”, he said..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..He argued that that a refusal to entertain this petition would set a bad precedent. The Court, however, dismissed the case.
