The Hindu : Front Page : Chief Justice of India is not exempt from RTI: Information Commission

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 08, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Chief Justice of India is not exempt from RTI: Information Commission

J. Venkatesan

Registry to appeal against order for information on judges’ assets

Registry and CJI’s office not independent
CJI cannot claim exemption on grounds of fiduciary relationship

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Registry will file an appeal in the Delhi High Court against an order passed by the Central Information Commission asking it to provide information in the possession of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on declaration of assets by judges of the apex court and High Courts.

Sources said complying with the CIC’s January 6 directions would have far-reaching consequences and ramifications.

Its Full Commission, comprising Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Commissioners A.N. Tiwari and M.M. Ansari, directed the Supreme Court Registry to furnish to S.C. Agrawal, an applicant, information on declaration of assets as per a May 7, 1997 resolution adopted at an all-India judges conference.

The CIC rejected the Supreme Court’s contention that the CJI was not obliged to furnish such information under the Right to Information Act. Nor did the CIC agree with the plea that the Registry and the CJI’s office were independent.

Mr. Agrawal had sought from the Supreme Court information under the RTI Act and a copy of the 1997 resolution, which required every judge to make a declaration, before the CJI or the Chief Justices of High Courts concerned, of his or her assets in the form of real estate or investments held in his or her name or in the names of the spouse and any dependent person.

While his plea for a copy of the resolution was accepted, his demand for information on whether the judges declared their assets to the CJI/Chief Justices of the High Courts and if so the details thereof was rejected by the registry on the ground that it was not in its possession. At this, Mr. Agrawal moved the appellate authority, which held that such information could not be provided. He then filed an appeal before the Full Commission of the CIC.

The CIC rejected the Registry’s contention that the Supreme Court and the CJI were not bound to share such information. Admittedly, the information on the judges of the Supreme Court was available with it. As a public authority, it was obliged to provide this information to a citizen making an application under the RTI Act.

On the contention that the declaration submitted by the judges was confidential and the information was provided to the CJI and the Chief Justices of High Courts in a fiduciary relationship and as such, its disclosure was exempted under the RTI Act, the CIC said the CJI could not claim any such exemption.

The CIC agreed with the appellant’s submission that the information with the CJI could not be categorised as ‘personal information’ in his personal capacity. The Supreme Court, consisting of the CJI and other judges, was an institution and the CJI was its head.

“The institution and its head cannot be two distinct public authorities. They are one and the same. Information, therefore, available with the CJI must be deemed to be available with the Supreme Court. The Registrar, who is only a part of the Supreme Court, cannot be categorised as a public authority independent [of] and distinct from the Supreme Court itself,” the CIC said and directed the Registry to furnish the information sought in 10 days.

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

Front Page