|
In sharp contrast to Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan’s open stand that his office was outside the ambit of the Right to Information Act, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority and falls within the purview of the transparency law
In sharp contrast to India’s Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan’s stand that his office was outside the ambit of the transparency law, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority and falls within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. “The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act, and the 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 S Ravindra Bhatt said on September 2 in a ruling that will have far reaching implications for the country’s higher judiciary. Describing his “humbling experience” as a judge who agrees that the “little man” can no longer be kept in the dark about judges’ assets, Bhatt said in the verdict: “It would be highly anomalous to say that in exercise of the legitimate jurisdiction to impact people’s lives, property, liberties and individual freedoms, judges have no obligation to disclose their personal assets to someone or authority.” A judge, the verdict said, was “a casual law-maker, just filling in the gaps”. Even as Justice Bhatt refrained from commenting on the recent thaw in the apex court’s stand, in deciding to put up details of judges’ assets on the Supreme Court’s official website, he suggested that the CJI should appoint a separate central public information officer to deal with the issue. “The resolution of 1997 is meant to be adhered to; the question of non-adherence should not even be debated,” Justice Bhatt said, adding that in the case of the higher judiciary, “mere moral declaration” is expected to be enough of a deterrent to attract compliance. However, the court said, the Right to Information Act does not put an obligation on a judge to disclose the assets of family members. The contents of the declaration will be deemed “personal information” unless its disclosure proved to be of larger public interest. Justice Bhatt was giving his judgment on a petition filed by the Supreme Court against a full bench decision of the Central Information Commission asking the Supreme Court to disclose whether judges were declaring their assets according to the tenets of a 1997 resolution. The verdict strikes a blow at the Supreme Court’s stand that asset declaration by judges has “nothing to do with their duties as judges”. The apex court contended that the duty to declare assets as per the 1997 resolution was a mere moral duty, not a legal obligation inviting sanctions in case of non-compliance. The apex court had argued that declaration of assets was purely “voluntary and confidential”, based on the bond of trust between the chief justice and his fellow judges. The high court turned down the Supreme Court’s plea, which said that the disclosure of information on assets given to the CJI by other judges was ‘unworkable’. Upholding the Central Information Commission’s order directing the Supreme Court to disclose whether judges were declaring their assets to the CJI or not, the high court said: “The holders of power” are expected to live by the standards they set, and the judiciary is no exception. The legal fraternity has welcomed the order. Senior counsel and noted constitutional expert K K Venugopal said: “I have no doubt that the judgment is constitutionally and legally correct and the only view to be taken in the matter.” Source: The Economic Times, September 3, 2009
The Indian Express, September 3, 2009
DNA, September 3, 2009
|
