Supreme Court challenges inclusion of Chief Justice under RTI Act
Sidharth
by Nirnimesh Kumar The Hindu, NEW DELHI, October 5, 2009
The Supreme Court on Monday filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court
challenging the single judge order of September 2 declaring the Chief
Justice of India (CJI) a public authority under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act and the declarations in his possession
pertaining to the assets of the Supreme Court Judges as information in
the public domain.
The appeal filed by the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the
Supreme Court submitted that the Single Judge Bench had failed to
appreciate that the information regarding declaration of assets by the
Judges of the Supreme Court sought by RTI activist Subash Chandra
Agarwal was not covered under the Act and Mr. Agarwal had no right to
seek such information under Section 2 (j) of the Act.
It said that the single judge had failed to appreciate that voluntary
declaration of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court to the CJI
could not be said to be material which was held by or was under the
control of any public authority.
The single judge’s judgment had come on a petition by the CPIO
challenging an order of the Central Information Commission directing
the Supreme Court to provide information sought by Mr. Agarwal about
the declaration of assets (not the contents of the declaration) made
by the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of the High Court had directed the CPIO to
provide the information sought by Mr. Agarwal within four weeks of the
pronouncement of the judgment.
“The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and he holds the
information pertaining to assets declarations in his capacity as Chief
Justice; that office is a public authority under the Act and is
covered by its provisions,” Justice Bhat had held.
The appeal further stated that the single judge had failed to
appreciate that there was a plethora of information which was
available with the judiciary which could not be made available in the
public domain, though strictly speaking it would be in the possession
of the public authority.
“If the reasoning of the single judge was taken to its logical
conclusion, it would mean that the application of the Act could also
be made to notes and draft judgments of the Judges,’’ the appeal
apprehended.
Seeking setting aside of the judgment, the CPIO sought an interim stay on it.