New Delhi: In a path-breaking judgement,
the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that the Chief Justice of
India is a public authority and his office came within the
purview of RTI Act and disclosure of assets of Supreme Court
judges made to him could be made public.
The judgement, which is expected to bring more
transparency in the judiciary, assumes significance as Chief
Justice K G Balakrishnan has been consistently maintaining
that the CJI`s office did not come within the ambit of the
Right to Information Act.
"The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and
the CJI holds the information pertaining to assets declaration
in his capacity as Chief Justice. That office is a public
authority under the Act and is covered by its provisions,"
Justice S Ravindra Bhatt said in a 72-page judgement.
"Declaration of assets by Supreme Court judges is an
information under Section 2 (F) of the RTI Act. The
information pertaining to declaration given to the CJI and the
contents of such declaration are information and subject to
the provisions of the RTI Act," the court said.
The verdict came in the backdrop of intense debate
over the issue and last week`s decision by Supreme Court
judges to make public their assets on the official website.
The High Court rejected the plea of the Supreme Court
that the disclosure of information on assets held by the CJI
was "unworkable".
The High Court rejected Supreme Court`s arguments that
the CJI holds the information on assets in a "fiduciary"
capacity and as such is exempted from disclosure under the
Act.
This argument "is insubstantial", it said adding
the "CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary
capacity or relationship"
It did not agree with the apex court`s contention
that the 1997 resolution passed by the judges on disclosure of
assets to CJI was not binding, saying it was adopted to set
the best ethical standards in the higher judiciary.
The judge said it would be "highly anamolous" to say
that judges have no obligation to disclose their personal
assets as standards of disclosure for the legislators,
parliamentarians and administrators were set by a Supreme
Court order.
"It would be robbing the solemnity of the resolution
to say that they were made with the expectation of not being
implemented."
"The resolution was intended to reflect the best
practices to be followed and form of standards of ethical
behaviour of judges of higher judiciary... Declaring personal
assets is to be seen as an essential ingredient of
contemporary acceptable behaviour and establishing a
convention," the court said.
Holding that assets declaration is an information
under the transparency law, the court said privacy rights of
judges would not always prevail "since the public interest
element seeps through the provision."
The court while deciding the issue said that it could
not be unmindful of the fact that several categories of public
servant are required to declare their assets periodically.
"The mere fact that the Supreme Court judges (through
the 1997 resolution) and members of the higher judiciary
(through the judicial conference resolution) recognise these
as normative and governing their conduct is sufficient to bind
them," the High Court said.
However, it tried to dispel apprehensions regarding
the alleged lack of accountability of the judicial system.
"The intervening developments have focused on
accountability of judges as this judgement sought to
demonstrate that the judge is not unaccountable as is
sometimes wrongly understood and is subject to several
constraints," the court said.
It added "the judicial branch lacks either the sword
or the purse controlled by the other two branches (executive
and legislature)".
Bureau Report
