LANDMARK CASE

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

(2020) 5 SCC 481 · Supreme Court of India · Right to information

At a glance

Citation: (2020) 5 SCC 481
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Right to information
In one line: Yes, subject to privacy and confidentiality balancing.

1 Facts

An RTI application sought information about judges' assets and appointments.

2 Issue

Is the office of the Chief Justice a public authority under the RTI Act?

3 What the court decided

Yes, subject to privacy and confidentiality balancing.

4 Why it matters

Transparency in the judiciary.

5 Think about it

How do courts balance privacy and transparency?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Right to information

Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013) 1 SCC 212
Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly Centre for Environmental Law, WWF India v. Union of India (Asiatic Lion) →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.