3-judge HC bench to decide if RTI covers CJI
Sidharth Misra
Reported in Economic Times 8 Oct 2009, 0601 hrs IST, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: A three-judge bench of the Delhi high court will decide
whether the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) falls within
the ambit of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act and whether the declaration of
assets by apex court judges was subject to the provisions of the
transparency law.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S
Muralidhar, while admitting the appeal of the apex court on Wednesday
remarked: “If the resolution (of declaring assets) is not binding,
then the resolution passed to maintain judicial values in court
proceedings can also be said to be non-binding and a judge, against
whom an in-house inquiry is conducted in case of deviation, can object
to it."
Attorney-General G E Vahanvati, appearing for the apex court, was
trying to convince the bench that the resolution passed by the Supreme
Court judges in accordance with the resolution passed by the apex
court in May 1997 to declare their assets to CJI was voluntary in
nature and not binding.
The court after hearing the preliminary plea, ordered for the
Constitution of a special 3-judge bench to decide the appeal filed by
the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in its appeal maintains that the office of the Chief
Justice of India falls outside the purview of the Right to Information
Act challenging order of the single judge bench of the high court
which had said that the CJI is a public authority and his office falls
within the purview of the transparency law.
The court fixed November 12 and 13 to decide the appeal. It did not
stay the order of the single judge bench. Mr Vahanvati did not press
for a stay on the order.
However, the appeal of the Supreme Court in the matter was opposed by
the counsel for RTI applicant seeking disclosure of the information on
assets of the apex court judges. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing
for the applicant said, such appeal (SC appeal) would bring disrepute
to the system.
Mr Vahanvati, however, objected and said "we are capable of taking
care of our system and we can take care of the consequences of filing
appeal in this matter."
In landmark verdict passed on September 2, Justice R Ravindra Bhatt
had said, "CJI is a public authority under RTI Act and CJI holds the
information pertaining to assets declaration in his capacity as Chief
Justice. That office is a public authority under the Act and is
covered by its provisions."
Justice Bhatt had said, "declaration of assets by Supreme Court judges
is an information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The information
pertaining to declaration given to CJI and the contents of such
declaration are information and subject to the provisions of RTI Act."
However, CJI Balakrishnan has been maintaining that his office does
not falls within the purview of RTI Act. "The office of the Chief
Justice is privy to so much of information like privileged
communication between various constitutional authorities, complaints
against judges etc. How can all this information be disclosed (under
RTI Act)," Justice Balakrishnan had said.
The apex court had filed an appeal in the high court alleging the
judgement of the single-judge bench was "bad in law" and "deserves to
be set aside".
Pointing out 58 "errors" in the 71-page verdict of the single bench,
the appeal filed by the Supreme Court registry said, "the analysis of
the single-judge is essentially wrong and conclusions reached by him
are unjustified in law and constitutional theory."
"The single-judge erred in law in holding that all the information
received by the CJI falls under the purview of the Act" said appeal,
adding, the judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that office of
the CJI and the registry are one and the same public authority.
It said, the high court findings that the 1997 resolution passed by
the judges on disclosure of assets to CJI was binding and had the
"force of law" was erroneous.
"The judge failed to appreciate that the information regarding the
declaration of assets by the Supreme Court judges was not covered
under RTI Act," said apex court in its appeal.
According to the apex court, the voluntary declaration of assets by
judges cannot be said to be held under the control of any public
authority.
Justice Bhatt, however, upholding the Central Information Commission's
order directing the Supreme Court to disclose whether judges are
declaring their assets to CJI or not, had said, "the holders of power"
are expected to live by the standards they set and the judiciary is no
exception to it.
He had dwelled upon the importance of RTI Act-2005 and said "the
Parliamentary intention in enacting this law was to arm citizens with
the mechanism to scrutinise government and public processes and ensure
transparency."
The transparency law, which illuminates unlit corners of state
activity, is the most important piece of legislation in the post
independence era to effectuate democracy, high court had remarked.