High Court takes on Supreme Court; Rules CJ covered under RTI Act

In a highly significant judgement that pitted the Delhi High Court against the Supreme Court of India, the Chief Justice of India’s office has been brought within the ambit of the Right To Information (RTI) Act.

Chief Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan has consistently been maintaining that his office does not come under the transparency law and hence cannot part with information like disclosure of judges’ assets under it.

However, holding that CJI is a public authority under the Act, the High Court bench said on Jan 12 judges of the superior courts should make public their assets as they are not “less accountable” than the judicial officers of the lower courts who are bound by service rules to declare assets.

The Supreme Court immediately decided to challenge the Delhi High Court verdict. As a result, the legal battle for getting information from the Supreme Court, which had started in November 2007, is set to prolong. Advocate Atul Nanda, appearing for the Supreme Court, contended that the issue was of national importance and so it has to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Court, after hearing his arguments, allowed him to move to Supreme Court.

The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah, Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice S. Muralidhar upheld the judgment of a single Judge and dismissed an appeal filed by the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court against this judgment. The single judge had on September 2, 2009 dismissed an appeal from the CPIO against an order of the CIC asking the Supreme Court Registry to furnish to RTI activist Subash Chandra Agarwal information in the CJI’s possession on assets of the judges.

“We are satisfied that the impugned order of the single Judge is both proper and valid and needs no interference,” the three-judge Bench said rejecting the submissions of the Attorney General, G.E. Vahanvati who contended “We cannot expose our judges to public scrutiny or inquiry because it would hamper their functioning and independence.”

Writing the 88-page judgment, Justice Shah said “The CJI cannot be a fiduciary vis-à-vis Judges of the Supreme Court. The Judges of the Supreme Court hold independent office, and there is no hierarchy, in their judicial functions, which places them at a different plane than the CJI.’’ The Bench said judicial independence is not a judge’s personal privilege but a responsibility cast upon him. “A judge must keep himself absolutely above suspicion, to preserve the impartiality and independence of the judiciary and to have the public confidence thereof.”
The Bench said “the introduction of the stipulation of declaring personal assets is to be seen as an essential ingredient of contemporary accepted behaviour and established convention.

Judiciary of undisputed integrity is the bedrock institution essential for ensuring compliance with democracy and the rule of law. Even when all other protections fail, it provides a bulwark to the public against any encroachments of its rights and freedoms under the law.

Accountability of the Judiciary cannot be seen in isolation. It must be viewed in the context of a general trend to render governors answerable to the people in ways that are transparent, accessible and effective. Behind this notion is a concept that the wielders of power – legislative, executive and judicial – are entrusted to perform their functions on condition that they account for their stewardship to the people who authorise them to exercise such power. “

The Bench quoted Edmund Burke who said “All persons possessing a portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust and that they are to account for their conduct in that trust.”

The legal fraternity was quite happy with the HC verdict. Prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan termed as “historic” the verdict. “It is a very historic judgement by the High Court which will certainly enhance the stature of judiciary in the country,” Bhushan, who has been appearing for the RTI activist Subash C. Agarwal seeking judges to declare their assets, said. Subhash C Agarwal, an RTI activist who sought the judges to make their assets public, said the verdict is a “victory for consumers of justice.”

Senior advocate A. M. Singhvi, welcoming the judgement, said he thought personally that the “decision of the Delhi high court on facts, law, equity and good sense is exceptionable.

- Asian Tribune -