Chief Justice of India office in RTI ambit: high court

New Delhi, Jan 12 

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court Tuesday 

upheld a single bench order that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) 

comes within the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 

observing that openness is the “best disinfectant”.

A full bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah 

and Justices S. Muralidhar and Vikramjit Sen said:

“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. 

Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant

of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” 

During the pronouncement of the judgment, the judges assured

that they too would declare their assets next week. 

“Information is a currency that every citizen requires to participate

in the life and governance of the society,”

the bench said in its 88-page judgment. 

Stressing that declaration of assets is a requirement that

is not being introduced for the first time, the bench said:

“As far as subordinate judges are concerned, they have

for long been required to do that year after year in terms

of the rules governing their conditions of service.

As regards accountability and independence,

it cannot possibly be contended that a judicial 

magistrate at the entry level in the judicial hierarchy

is any less accountable or independent than the judge

of the high court or the Supreme Court.” 

“While it is obvious that the degree of accountability

and answerability of a high court judge or a Supreme 

Court judge can be no different from that of a magistrate, 

it can well be argued that the higher the judge is placed in

the judicial hierarchy, the greater the standard of

accountability and the stricter the scrutiny of accountability

of such mechanism.” 

Emphasising the importance of RTI, the bench said:

“RTI has over-reaching impact. Citizens who require such 

information should not misuse the information, thus saving

the independence of (the) judiciary.” 

“Income tax returns and medical records will not

be revealed under the RTI but if public interest is

attached with it then it also needs to be disclosed,”

the bench said in a voluminous judgment. 

Two resolutions in 1997 and 1999 had said this declaration 

of assets was not binding on judges but could be done voluntarily

Attorney General (AG) Goolam E. Vahanvati, 

appearing for the apex court registry, had contended that the 

1997 and 1999 resolution regarding declaration of assets

by judges was non-statutory, non-binding and it could not

force a judge to declare assets to the Chief Justice of India. 

Refuting the AG’s contention, the bench said:

“Such a contention cannot be accepted if the

proper functioning of the judiciary as an institution

has to be ensured. The consequence of accepting

such an argument would mean that individual judges

will simply declare that they are not bound by any of

the resolutions of the court and they are free to act

according to their whim.” 

“The disclosure of assets by judges, their spouses

and dependent persons on the website of the Supreme 

Court, Kerala High Court and Madras High Court

provides the answer as to how the resolutions can

be implemented, in what manner, by whom and to

what extent,” the bench said. 

“The above development shows that the judges have

perfectly understood how much information should be

disclosed and in what manner they have to put the

information on the website.” 

The AG also argued that the information which

is sought for by the respondent (S.C. Aggarwal) 

is purely and simply personal information, the

disclosure of which has no relationship to any public 

activity. He emphasized that access to such information

would result in unwarranted intrusion of privacy. 

Not agreeing with the AG’s submission, the bench said

: “In the present case, the only information that was sought

by the respondent was whether such declaration of assets

were filed by judges of the Supreme Court and also whether

high court judges have submitted such declarations

about their assets to the respective chief justices in 

states. Release of this information would not amount to

actionable breach of any confidentiality.” 

The bench had reserved its order in November 2009. 

The high court, in its Sep 2, 2009, verdict on the controversial

issue held that the CJI was a public authority and his office

came within the purview of the transparency law. 

The judgment was contrary to the stand taken
by CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, who has consistently maintained
that his office is beyond the purview of the RTI law.