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. 

RTI activist Satish Shetty killed near Pune

Pune, Jan 13 Prominent Right to Information (RTI)
activist Satish Shetty was Wednesday killed when he was attacked
by unidentified men while on a morning walk in Talegaon, 
on the outskirts of this Maharashtra town.

Shetty, 38, credited with exposing several land scams in the
picturesque Talegaon-Lonavala regions, now a favourite
with realtors in the state, succumbed to his injuries in hospital.

'Around 7.15 a.m., when the deceased was on his morning walk,
some unidentified people assaulted him and injured him seriously.
He was rushed to a private hospital, but he succumbed later,'
investigating officer of the Talegaon Police Station Pradeep Aphale told IANS.

A colleague added that Shetty had left his home around 6.45 a.m.
for his usual morning walk when he was attacked with swords
near Bhandari Hospital.

He had shot to fame after exposing certain corrupt land deals
in and around the country's first expressway from
Mumbai to Pune over a decade ago.

By  Indo Asian News Service

Union Govt derecognised 44 deemed universities.

UNION GOVERNMENT has taken a delayed but welcome initiative for checking high-level irregularities in private universities which are virtually education-shops’ to mint money, when it derecognised 44 deemed universities.

But this is not enough. University Grants Commission (UGC) should play a role of perfect monitoring authority over all private universities in a manner Reserve Bank of India monitors all banks including private banks. Such a step will effectively check malpractices in private universities especially in respect of fees-structure.

Some private universities (like Amity University) have a ‘white-elephant’ fees-structure in form of ‘sponsored category’ over and above their ‘normal’ elephant-like fees structure. This so-termed sponsored category is nothing but a back-door admission tactics charging double fees from the students than normally fixed.

Rather UGC should order refund of extra fees already charged from students in name of categories like ‘sponsored fees’ by Amity University.

Then only self-regulation will be possible in a system where private sector is dominating all fields in day-to-day life. 

Also Right to Information (RTI) Act should be extended to private sector as well.

RTI, Delhi High Court and Supreme Court

By :Raj Kumar Makkad  on 19 January 2010

	With the Delhi high court ruling that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, a long-drawn-out debate will now hopefully find amicable resolution

	The ruling of the three-judge bench was on an appeal by the Supreme Court registry against the high court's single-judge verdict in September.

.		The challenge to the September verdict was that such liberal interpretation of the RTI law could hamper the judges' independence. Basically dismissing the appeal, the three-judge bench of Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justices Vikramjeet Sen and S. Muralidhar said: "The judicial independence is not a privilege to a judge but a responsibility." The full extent of the information impacted by this ruling will be clarified over time; nonetheless, it holds out the possibility of closure on the judges' assets issue in a way that retrieves for the higher judiciary the credibility and moral authority it has traditionally enjoyed. The demand to make public details about the judges' assets had over the past few months visibly divided the judiciary, with many high courts seen to be pushing the apex court to greater transparency. Moreover, by being perceived to be holding out against the kind of transparency and accountability that it was helping impose in practically all other areas of public life, the senior judiciary was seen to be in danger of undermining its position. Indeed, in the months since the issue first came up, a greater number of judges, including those of the Supreme Court, have made public details of their material wealth. What the Delhi high court's verdict, were it to remain unchallenged, does is make the declaration a formality, and not just a voluntary gesture. As J.S. Verma, former chief justice of India on whose watch the full court's resolution on declaring assets was accomplished in 1997, has argued in these pages, there is a legitimate concern about harassment of judges by "unscrupulous persons and disgruntled litigants". But he went on to say that this must be accepted as an occupational hazard, and some safeguards can be determined. The larger issue, he said, is this: "In the current environment of waning credibility of the higher judiciary, with specific allegations of corruption based on prima facie authentic materials even against a few of the highest, it is in the judiciary's own interest to be fully transparent and above suspicion." Our higher judiciary is considered the world's most powerful. It has played a pivotal role in upholding constitutional propriety, and filling in the spaces vacated by the executive and the legislature. The prospect of closing a rocky chapter in its history, and that too through its own, can only be good for the judiciary.