New Delhi, Jan 12 (Inditop.com) The legal fraternity Tuesday hailed the Delhi High Court judgement holding the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) office within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, saying it would make the judiciary more accountable. But some warned there had to be “inbuilt safeguards” to avoid troublesome litigation.
“Now the judiciary is accountable for all its official functions. Everything is accessible and this is indeed historic,” Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan told Inditop.
“By this (judgement) it has elevated the status of the Delhi High Court and of the judiciary. It is comical and farcical that the Supreme Court is appealing against this verdict,” said Bhushan.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justices Vikramjit Sen and S. Muralidhar Tuesday dismissed a plea of the Supreme Court which contended that bringing the CJI’s office within the RTI Act would hamper judicial independence. They instead argued that judicial independence was not a judge’s privilege but a responsibility cast upon him.
According to the judgement, apex court judges would not only be required to reveal details of their assets but other decisions such as appointment of judges and complaints against judges would come under public scrutiny.
Income tax returns and medical records need not be revealed under the RTI Act but if public interest is attached with it, then this too needs to be disclosed, the bench has ruled in its voluminous judgement.
Former Supreme Court judge K.T. Thomas said the verdict was long overdue.
“There is no public office in India that should be exempted from the RTI. Transparency and accountability are important,” he told Inditop from Kerala.
He was, however, slightly apprehensive and said confidential inquiries, especially ongoing probes, could hamper the functioning of the judiciary.
“But when a judge is looking into a complaint (against another judge), its contents cannot be made public and it can only done when the inquiry is complete. Otherwise it will have repercussions.”
A similar anxiety was articulated by senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal who felt the move should not pave the way for vexatious litigation.
“Declaration of assets and transparency is welcome but there have to be inbuilt safeguards where this should not be exploited by vested interests,” he said.
“This order should not be abused and has to be used sensibly.”
Criminal lawyer Rebecca Mamman John saw no reason why the higher judiciary had reason to worry and instead maintained that it should welcome the verdict.
“I think the judiciary should have nothing to hide. This transparency is good for democracy and will have a salutary effect,” she said.
“And I do not believe this judgement would lead to unnecessary litigation. We have forums to deal with that. If the office of the CJI is opened up, all other public offices must also follow suit.”
