Judges assets: `A bold & reasonable verdict`, says experts
The Delhi High Court`s judgement holding that the office of Chief Justice of India falls under the purview of the Right To Information Act was hailed by legal experts as "bold".
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court`s
judgement holding that the office of Chief Justice of India
falls under the purview of the Right To Information Act was
hailed by legal experts as "bold" and "reasonable," reflecting
the independence of the judiciary.
Noted jurists K K Venugopal, Shanti Bhushan and P P
Rao said the verdict on a "highly sensitive" issue was
"contitutionally correct" where for the first time a decision
has been given against the superior court.
"It is a bold judgement," said Venugopal and Bhushan.
"I think the judgement is a superb example of judicial
independence. The fact that the Supreme Court Registrar was in
effect representing the entire body of judges representing the
Supreme Court did not deter the judge from dealing with a
highly sensitive and controversial issue is wholly correct,"
The senior advocate said "I have no doubt that the
judgement is constitutionally and legally correct and the only
view to be taken in the matter".
Agreed Bhushan who termed the verdict as "excellent"
and said "it is for the first time the High Court has decided
against the Supreme Court as a whole as appeal against the
Central Information Commission`s decision was filed on behalf
of the Supreme Court.
"The judge has acted very independently in turning
down the appeal of the Supreme Court which is a higher
judicial body than the High Court," the former Law Minister
Bhushan said, "the High Court must be commended for
acting so independently as it was its duty to do.
Rao, a noted constitutional expert, described the
verdict as "reasonable" and said "the stand of the Supreme
Court to challenge the CIC order was not appropriate".
"Such a response on behalf of the apex court was not
expected," he said adding "my view from the beginning has been
that the concerned officer (Chief Public Information Officer
of the apex court) should have complied with the direction
of the CIC".