Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 16

More than nine years after the Delhi High Court ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information Act, a Constitution Bench will examine the issue for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue.

A five-judge Constitution Bench will on March 27 take up the contentious issue that arose from an appeal filed by the Supreme Court secretary general against the January 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court declaring the CJI’s office a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

A three-judge Bench headed by Justice AP Shah, then chief justice of the Delhi High Court, had upheld a single judge’s verdict that held the Supreme Court and CJI were duty-bound under the RTI Act to give information in response to RTI applications filed by citizens with regard to the top court’s administration.

Earlier, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had in January 2009 directed the Supreme Court Central Public Information Officer to provide the information sought by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal who wanted information on declaration of assets by top court judges.

A single judge had upheld the CIC’s verdict. A three-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the Supreme Court secretary general’s appeal against the single judge’s order, forcing the secretary general to challenge the high court verdict before the Supreme Court in 2010 itself.

Three issues were referred to Constitution Bench in 2016 for consideration. First, whether the concept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought? Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of the judiciary?

Second, whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision?

And third, whether the information sought for is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information Act?

Interestingly, the top court judges declared their assets in 2009 without waiting for the legal issues involved getting settled.