Tag:GS-2||Polity||Judiciary||Supreme Court

Why in news?

Supreme Court has upheld the 2010 Delhi High Court Verdict and ruled that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the right to information

and ruled that the office of Chief Justice of India is a under the right to information The five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India highlighted the importance of transparency in the judiciary and said right to privacy and confidentiality is an important aspect. Apex court also held that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.

Background of the case

The judgment pertained to a case based on requests for information filed by Delhi-based RTI activist Subhash Agarwal , all of which eventually reached the Supreme Court.

, all of which eventually reached the Supreme Court. In 2009, Agarwal had asked whether all Supreme Court judges had declared their assets and liabilities to the CJI following a resolution passed in

and to the CJI following a resolution passed in Central Public Information Officer(CPIO )of the Supreme Court said the office of the CJI was not a public authority under the RTI Act.

The matter reached the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and full Bench of CIC directed disclosure of information.

The Supreme Court approached the Delhi High Court against the CIC order.

High Court held on September 2, 2009, that “the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the RTI Act and is covered by its provisions”.

held on that The Supreme Court then approached a larger Bench comprising then Chief Justice (Delhi High Court ) Ajit Prakash Shah, Justice Vikramjit Sen, and Justice S Muralidhar.

comprising then Chief Justice (Delhi High Court In January 2010 the larger bench passed its judgment holding that the previous judgment of a single judge bench (Justice Bhatt) was “both proper and valid and needs no interference”.

‘’Judicial independence was not a judge’s privilege, but a responsibility cast upon him.’’

Supreme court in Supreme court

In 2010 the Secretary-General of Supreme Court petitioned the Supreme Court itself challenging the Delhi High Court order.

petitioned the Supreme Court itself challenging the Delhi High Court order. The matter was placed before a Division Bench, which decided that it should be heard by a Constitution Bench

which decided that it should be heard by a Constitution Bench The setting up of the Constitution Bench remained pending for 9 years (under 10 CJIs).

(under 10 CJIs). In 2018, CJI Gogoi constituted the Bench.

CJI Gogoi constituted the Bench. In April 2019, the bench reserved its judgment.

In November 2019, the was Judgement pronounced.

Highlights of the Ruling

The Supreme Court is a “public authority” and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution.

and the office of the Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI.

The judiciary cannot function in total insulation as judges enjoy a constitutional post and discharge public duty.

Terms and conditions

The right to know is not absolute . The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges.

. The right to know of a citizen ought to be The right to privacy is an important aspect and has to be balanced with transparency while deciding to give out information from the office of the Chief Justice of India.

while deciding to give out information from the office of the Chief Justice of India. RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.

The checks

Personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

if such disclosure served the The disclosure of personal information was discretionary under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act . The statute has given the discretion to the Public Information Officer (PIO).

. The statute has given the discretion to the Information about assets of judges and official communication during the process of elevation of judges to the Supreme Court are treated as confidential third-party information.

during the of judges to the Supreme Court are treated as In such cases, a notice should be first issued to the third party e. the judge concerned about the RTI request for information. The view of the third party should be considered before the PIO takes a call.

RTI Act, 2005

Section-2(j): “ Right to Information “means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to: Inspection of work, documents, records; Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; Taking certified samples of material; Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

“ “means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any and includes the right to:

What is Public Authority according to the RTI act?

“Public authority “means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted— by or under the Constitution; by any other law made by Parliament/State Legislature . by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any Body owned, controlled or substantially financed; Non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

established or constituted—

What institutions are exempt from RTI?

Political parties

CBI- the CBI demanded exemption only for units in intelligence gathering , the exemption was granted in 2011 to the agency as a whole.

the CBI demanded exemption only for , the Most of the other intelligence gathering agencies.

Offices of the Prime Minister and the President which are public authorities under the RTI Act have often denied information.

Way forward

Need for more transparency: After bringing SC judges under the ambit of RTI, the next logical step would be to remove opaqueness about appointments of the judges , made through the Collegium system in the SC.

After bringing SC judges under the ambit of RTI, the next logical step would be to , made through the Collegium system in the SC. A screening committee of RTI Act : In order to reduce the administrative burden of bureaucracy (pertaining to RTI requests), a screening committee (comprised of civil society members) can be formed, which can weed out frivolous RTI requests.

: In order to reduce the administrative burden of bureaucracy (pertaining to RTI requests), a screening committee can be formed, which can weed out Strengthen RTI: RTI Act can be strengthened with a strong Whistleblower Protection Act.

RTI Act can be strengthened with Expand ambit of RTI:The SC judgment paves the way for greater transparency. Therefore it is now the turn of other institutions such as registered political parties to be be brought under the RTI Act.

Conclusion

The RTI Act is a strong weapon that enhances accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy. In this context, the judgment can give a fillip to people’s quest for transparency and accountability.

Mains model question

Recently Supreme Court has upheld the 2010 Delhi High Court Verdict and ruled that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the right to information Explain the implications and outcome of the verdict.

References