|
In a landmark verdict, the Delhi High Court has said the Chief Justice of India is a public authority and his office comes within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, as the concept of judicial independence is not a judge’s personal privilege but a responsibility cast on the person
The Delhi High Court has held that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a “public authority” that comes within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and that it is bound to provide information about the declaration of assets applied to Supreme Court judges. A full bench of the high court, headed by Chief Justice A P Shah, Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice S Muralidhar, dismissed an apex court appeal that opposed bringing the CJI’s office within the purview of the Act on grounds that it would erode its judicial independence. The high court, however, made it clear that notes, jottings and draft judgments of the CJI’s office would not fall under the transparency law. But, “if the judge turns in notes, along with the rest of his files to be maintained as a part of the record, the same may be disclosed,” the bench said. This is in sharp contrast to CJI K G Balakrishnan’s stand that his office is outside the ambit of the transparency law. The apex court will now have to appeal to itself against the high court order. As a natural corollary of the verdict, information pertaining to the assets of apex court judges and appointment of judges to the apex court furnished to the office of the CJI will come within the purview of the transparency law. The declaration of assets by 25 judges of the Supreme Court, including the CJI and one retired judge, posted on the website of the apex court says such declarations are purely voluntary. “Judicial independence is not the personal privilege or prerogative of the individual judge. It is the responsibility imposed on each judge to enable him or her to adjudicate a dispute honestly and impartially on the basis of the law and the evidence,” said the high court in its 88-page judgment. According to the high court, the higher up a judge is in the judicial hierarchy, the greater the standard of accountability and stricter the scrutiny. “If declaration of assets by a subordinate judicial officer is seen as essential to enforce accountability at that level, then the need for such declaration by judges of the constitutional courts is even greater,” it said turning down the plea that Supreme Court judges were not bound to declare their assets. Giving wider interpretation to the transparency law, which was hailed as “the most significant event in the life of Indian democracy,” the court said that right to information was part of the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (1) ( a) (freedom of speech) and 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution. “The source of right to information does not emanate from the Right to Information Act. It is a right that emerges from the constitutional guarantees under Article 19 (1) (a) as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The Right to Information Act is not a repository of the right to information,” the court said. The high court added that the unanimous resolution of Supreme Court judges passed in 1997 on declaration of assets could not now be questioned. The judges had decided to put the details of their assets in the public domain. It also observed that the judges of the higher judiciary were no less accountable than the judicial magistrates legally bound to declare their assets. The Supreme Court had appealed before the division bench of the high court challenging an order passed by a single-judge bench of the high court. Justice S Ravindra Bhatt said: “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.” Realising the importance of the case, the division bench had referred the case to a full bench. Source: The Economic Times, January 13, 2010
The Hindu, January 13, 2010
The Indian Express, January 13, 2010
|
