New Delhi, Oct 5 (Inditop.com) The Supreme Court Monday moved the Delhi High Court against its ruling that the office of the chief justice of India (CJI) came within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and said that all its judges are declaring their assets before the CJI.
The ruling of the single-judge bench of the high court had also made it mandatory for apex court judges to disclose their assets.
The apex court in its appeal said that the declaration of the assets by the judges is a voluntarily step and is not under the RTI act.
“The declaration of assets by the apex court judges has been done under their fiduciary capacity as per family of judiciary,” the appeal prepared by Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati said.
The case is likely to be heard Tuesday.
Earlier, in a letter to Delhi resident Subhash Chandra Agrawal, on whose plea the Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed the disclosure of the apex court judges’ assets, the Supreme Court’s Additional Registrar Rajpal Arora informed him that the apex court was all set to move the high court.
Although the Supreme Court had agreed to put the information regarding assets of judges on its website, the appeal filed deals with the larger issue whether the CJI’s office comes within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat had ruled on the RTI Act and the judges’ assets Sep 2 after the apex court’s registrar, who is the information officer under the act, approached the high court in January challenging the CIC order.
Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan has gone on record contending that his office does not fall under the purview of the act.
The high court, which described the transparency law as a powerful beacon, had said the modalities for revealing information could be decided by the CJI in consultation with other judges.
The high court also did not agree with the apex court’s contention that the 1997 resolution passed by the judges on disclosure of assets to the CJI was not binding, saying it was adopted to set the best ethical standards in the higher judiciary.
