NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission has ruled that the process of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts need not be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The decision was taken on July 10 on an application filed on February 13, asking for the copy of "any one recommendation or consultation in the last 10 years" submitted to the President under Article 124 (2) of the Constitution. The provision deals with the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges.

"The information given by the Chief Justice to the President has been shielded from public gaze over all these years. Coming into force of the RTI Act has raised a question mark over the confidentiality of the process of consultation between the Supreme Court and the President. ... Arguably there is merit in the contention that certain processes are best conducted away from the public gaze, for that is what contributes to sober analysis and mature reflection, unaffected by competing pressures and public scrutiny. If there is one process which needs to be so protected, the process of selecting judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court must qualify to be one such," said Central Information Commissioner A.N. Tiwari.

Exempted under RTI Act

The Commission held that that the information collected by the Supreme Court to quip it to discharge its constitutionally ordained role of advising the President regarding who to appoint as judges was in the nature of "personal information provided by a third party" and exempted under Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act. Disclosing such information violated the fiduciary relationship as well as the confidence and trust between the candidates and the Supreme Court, and was exempted from disclosure by Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.

Appellant Mukesh Kumar also asked for the number of judges belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Commission held that since the public authority concerned was not required to maintain information regarding the caste status of judges, such information could not be supplied.

"It was rightly pointed out during the hearing that judges may have objection to a caste census limited to the judges' fraternity alone. Since no law provides for maintaining information regarding the caste status of the judges, inferentially it can be argued that it would have been objectionable even to maintain such information," the Commission said.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail