Chief Justice of India's office comes within RTI Act: HC

New Delhi, Jan 11 (PTI) In a landmark verdict against the
Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held
that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes within the
ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) law, saying judicial
independence is not a judge's privilege but a responsibility
cast upon him.
The 88-page judgement is being seen as a personal setback
to CJI K G Balakrishnan, who has been opposed to disclosure of
information relating to judges under the RTI Act.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah
and Justices Vikramjeet Sen and S Muralidhar dismissed a plea
of the Supreme Court which contended that bringing the CJI's
office within the RTI Act would "hamper" judicial
independence.
"The judicial independence is not a privilege to a judge
but a responsibility," the High Court said, adding that the
CJI cannot be said to have fiduciary relationship (between a
trustee and a beneficiary) with other judges.
Taking a step further to bring transparency in
judiciary, the bench while pronouncing the verdict in a packed
courtroom, said its judges will be making their assets public
within a week.
CJI has consistently been maintaining that his office
does not come within the ambit of the RTI Act and the
information including the declaration of assets of its judges
cannot be made public under it.
The High Court had in its September 2 verdict on the
controversial issue held that the CJI was a public authority
and his office came within the purview of the RTI Act.
Challenging the order, the Supreme Court registry had
contended that the single judge had erred in holding that the
CJI's office comes within the ambit of the transparency law
and had interpreted its provisions too broadly which were
"unnecessary" and "illogical".
The apex court also contended that judges cannot be put
under public scrutiny as it would hamper their functioning and
independence.
"We cannot expose our judges to public scrutiny or
inquiry because it would hamper their functioning and
independence," Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati, appearing
for the apex court registry, had contended.
The AG had argued that other agencies should not be
allowed to interfere in the judiciary.
"Judges cannot be judged by public perception. The
judiciary cannot be exposed to third party. There is no
problem in having better transparency and accountability in
the system but it should come from within the system," AG had
submitted.
As public opinion mounted on the assets issue, the CJI
and other judges of the Supreme Court on November two
voluntarily declared their assets by putting the details on
the official website.
In its appeal, the Supreme Court maintained that the
independence of judiciary is paramount.

In its judgement, the High Court said that the unanimous
resolution of SC judges passed in 1997 on declaration of
assets cannot be questioned now. The Judges had then decided
to put details of their assets in public domain.
It also observed that the judges of the higher judiciary
are not less accountable than the judicial magistrates who are
legally bound to declare their assets.
During the arguments, the AG had said, "Non-declaration
of assets does not mean demeaning and lowering of judicial
values. Judges also need protection. They are most vulnerable
in the society."
If CJI's office is declared as a public authority under
the RTI Act, then people would also seek information over the
appointment and promotion of judges, he had said.
The apex court had pleaded that the resolution passed by
its judges for declaring their assets is not binding on them
as it was part of the self-regulatory mechanism for the
judiciary.
"If we accept your (apex court registry) arguments
(that resolution is not binding on judges), then it would have
serious implication on self-regulation. It is binding and its
non-observance has certain consequences," the High Court had
observed. PTI SJK
AHM