The Court was hearing a plea challenging the order of the SIC dated August 11, 2017, which had allowed a plea by one Chandravadan Dhruv seeking information regarding the appointment, salary and allowances given to Justice Sugnaben Bhatt.
The Information Officer had initially refused to furnish this information, stating that it was personal information that had no relationship with any public activity.
The said order was challenged twice by the RTI applicant. In the second appeal, the Gujarat Information Commission ruled in favour of disclosing the information sought on the pay and allowances given to Justice Bhatt. This SIC order, in turn, was challenged by the High Court on its administrative side.
Advocate Trusha Patel appeared for the High Court administration and argued that the pay and allowances of High Court Judges cannot be branded as being that of officers and employees under Section 4 of the RTI Act. None represented the respondents, Dhruv (RTI applicant) and the SIC.