The landmark judgment which brought the office of CJI under the ambit of RTI was pronounced by a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
"The CJI is within the public authority. The Right to Information and Right to Privacy are two sides of the same coin," the Supreme Court said, upholding the Delhi High Court's ruling.
main HIGHLIGHTS
- The SC
has held that the office of CJI is a public authority under the transparency law,
Right to Information Act, 2005.
- SC cautioned that RTI cannot be used as a tool of
surveillance.
- Judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with
transparency, held SC.
"The Right to Information and Right to Privacy are
two sides of the same coin. None can take precedence over the other," the
court said in a judgement that said the Chief Justice's office comes under the
transparency law.
The Supreme Court in case of CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal has held
that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under
the transparency law, the Right to Information Act.
"Transparency
doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a
unanimous verdict as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that
office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.
The five-judge the constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, heard
three civil appeals challenging the Delhi high court judgment, filed by
Secretary-General of the Supreme Court and the Central Public Information
officer of the apex court. The case covers issues such as disclosure of
assets by judges and transparency in the functioning of the collegium.
Bench
dismissed the three appeals filed by the secretary-general of the Supreme court and
the Central Public Information officer of the apex court. Other members of the
bench included Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv
Khanna.
The
majority of judges held that the CJI’s office should be brought under the
purview of said Act. While public interest demands accountability, judicial
independence is foremost, it was stated by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
However,
bringing the CJI’s office under the RTI would not weaken the independence of
the judiciary said Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who read out a separate opinion
on the case.
Justice
Chandrachud added that “Neither is RTI under Article 19 nor is the right to
privacy absolute” and said that all Judges and CJI hold the “constitutional
positions”.
A separate opinion was also stated by Justice Ramana, who
said that the “RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance”.
While the
Chief Justice and Justices Gupta and Khanna wrote one judgement, Justices
Ramana and Chandrachud have written separate verdicts.
The
Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to
be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used as a tool of surveillance.
The bench said that only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be
disclosed, not the reasons.
A five-judge constitution bench had on April 4 reserved its verdict on the
appeals filed in 2010 by the Supreme Court secretary-general and its central
public information officer against the high court and the central information
commission's (CIC's) orders.
The Bench headed by chief justice winded up
the hearing by that saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but
the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency.
"Nobody
wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of
darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name
of transparency, you can't destroy the institution."
Download and Read Judgement here [pdf]
Download and Read Judgement here [pdf]
The Delhi High Court order
In a landmark verdict on
January 10, 2010, the Delhi High Court had held that the office of the Chief
Justice of India comes within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) law,
stating that judicial independence was not a judge's privilege, but a responsibility
cast upon him.
The 88-page judgment was
then seen as a personal setback to the then CJI, KG Balakrishnan, who has been
opposed to disclosure of information relating to judges under the RTI Act.
The SC highlights
The step of bringing office
of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal.
It was submitted by Prashant Bhushan
(his lawyer) in the Top Court that though
SC should not have been judging in his
own cause, the appeals are being heard due to "doctrine of necessity".
The Judiciary is not
willing to impart information under the RTI Act and it had been described by
lawyers about Judiciary as “unfortunate” and “disturbing” asking: "Do
judges inhabit different universe?"
He had
submitted that the apex court has always act transparently in the functioning of
other organs of state, but stands silent when its own issue requires the
attention.
Referring to the provisions
of RTI, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that
cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always
"outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or
about to hold a public office.
Dealing with "judicial
independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act
was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the
executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public
scrutiny".
"This is not the
independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be
independent from the executive and not independent from the common public. People
are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had
said.
The deliberations of the
collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public
and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in
mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.
The bench had said people,
of late, were opting out and do not want to become judges because of the fear
of negative publicity.
"On interaction, the
reason appears to be the possibility of the negative observations, whether
rightly or wrongly, being brought into the public domain," it had
observed. In such a case, besides losing judgeship and reputation, the
professional and family life of the person are adversely affected, it had said.
The apex court had said it
had brought about changes in the functioning of the collegium system and said
now members have started interacting with the prospective candidate.
‘Judiciary should be independent from the
executive, not common public’
0 Comments