New Delhi, Jan 12 (Inditop.com) In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court Tuesday upheld a single bench order that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) comes within the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, observing that openness is the “best disinfectant”.
A full bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justices S. Muralidhar and Vikramjit Sen said: “Accountability of the judiciary cannot be seen in isolation. It must be viewed in the context of a general trend to render governors answerable to the people in ways that are transparent, accessible and effective. Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
During the pronouncement of the judgment, the judges assured that they too would declare their assets next week.
“Information is a currency that every citizen requires to participate in the life and governance of the society,” the bench said in its 88-page judgment.
Stressing that declaration of assets is a requirement that is not being introduced for the first time, the bench said: “As far as subordinate judges are concerned, they have for long been required to do that year after year in terms of the rules governing their conditions of service. As regards accountability and independence, it cannot possibly be contended that a judicial magistrate at the entry level in the judicial hierarchy is any less accountable or independent than the judge of the high court or the Supreme Court.”
“While it is obvious that the degree of accountability and answerability of a high court judge or a Supreme Court judge can be no different from that of a magistrate, it can well be argued that the higher the judge is placed in the judicial hierarchy, the greater the standard of accountability and the stricter the scrutiny of accountability of such mechanism.”
Emphasising the importance of RTI, the bench said: “RTI has over-reaching impact. Citizens who require such information should not misuse the information, thus saving the independence of (the) judiciary.”
“Income tax returns and medical records will not be revealed under the RTI but if public interest is attached with it then it also needs to be disclosed,” the bench said in a voluminous judgment.
Two resolutions in 1997 and 1999 had said this declaration of assets was not binding on judges but could be done voluntarily
Attorney General (AG) Goolam E. Vahanvati, appearing for the apex court registry, had contended that the 1997 and 1999 resolution regarding declaration of assets by judges was non-statutory, non-binding and it could not force a judge to declare assets to the Chief Justice of India.
Refuting the AG’s contention, the bench said: “Such a contention cannot be accepted if the proper functioning of the judiciary as an institution has to be ensured. The consequence of accepting such an argument would mean that individual judges will simply declare that they are not bound by any of the resolutions of the court and they are free to act according to their whim.”
“The disclosure of assets by judges, their spouses and dependent persons on the website of the Supreme Court, Kerala High Court and Madras High Court provides the answer as to how the resolutions can be implemented, in what manner, by whom and to what extent,” the bench said.
“The above development shows that the judges have perfectly understood how much information should be disclosed and in what manner they have to put the information on the website.”
The AG also argued that the information which is sought for by the respondent (S.C. Aggarwal) is purely and simply personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity. He emphasized that access to such information would result in unwarranted intrusion of privacy.
Not agreeing with the AG’s submission, the bench said: “In the present case, the only information that was sought by the respondent was whether such declaration of assets were filed by judges of the Supreme Court and also whether high court judges have submitted such declarations about their assets to the respective chief justices in states. Release of this information would not amount to actionable breach of any confidentiality.”
The bench had reserved its order in November 2009.
The high court, in its Sep 2, 2009, verdict on the controversial issue held that the CJI was a public authority and his office came within the purview of the transparency law.
The judgment was contrary to the stand taken by CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, who has consistently maintained that his office is beyond the purview of the RTI law.
