Uttarakhand SIC orders High Court to disclose status of corruption complaints against subordinate judiciary

Dehradun (Uttarakhand) [India], January 13 (ANI): The Chief Information Commissioner of Uttarakhand SIC, Radha Raturi, has directed the joint registrar of Uttarakhand High Court to furnish the Information on the status of corruption complaints against subordinate judiciary, after due permission is received from the competent authority, an official release Uttarakhand Information Commision.
According to the release, the order was passed on January 1, after a hearing held recently in which senior Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi's plea challenged the denial of such data by the high court on grounds of confidentiality and third-party concerns.
During the hearing, Chaturvedi submitted that the right to information flows from the fundamental right of free expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the release said.
The order came after a hearing held recently in which a senior Indian Forest Service officer, Sanjiv Chaturvedi's plea challenged the denial of such data by the high court on grounds of confidentiality and third-party concerns. The officer, currently posted in Haldwani, had sought the information in May 2025.
Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi directed the Joint Registrar of the Uttarakhand High Court to furnish the required data upon receipt of due permission from the competent authority. Significantly, the Delhi High Court and the Chennai High Court had previously declined similar information.
Chaturvedi, known as an anti-corruption crusader whistleblower, had sought information about the name of the competent authority before whom complaints of corruption or misconduct against subordinate judiciary can be submitted and the total number of such complaints from January 2020 to April 2025, as well as action taken by the high court, on such complaints.
While the public information officer (PIO) replied to Chaturvedi's request in June 2025, disclosing partial information, but the entire information was not provided.
After the SIC, the first appellate authority, granted no relief, the SIC, during the hearing, ruled that the number of such cases should be shared only after obtaining due permission from the competent authority.
Chaturvedi's lawyer, Sudershan Goel, welcomed the SIC order, saying they were compelled to file the application in view of the number of illegitimate orders and practices encountered by them.
"Applications filed by us before lower courts were adjudicated by way of erroneous recording of our presence, copies of pending criminal proceedings filed by us were supplied to third parties to our detriment, and various laws settled by the apex court in this regard were completely ignored," he said.
Citing a recent instance, the lawyer said an order was passed declining registration of an FIR wherein a false complaint was made, with fake signatures, to tarnish the reputation of Chaturvedi, which was wholly against basic canons of criminal jurisprudence, and compelled them to seek relevant data about disciplinary proceedings against district-level judges, in various types of misconduct. (ANI)