Sehar Rauf
Abstract
Judiciary is considered as the guardian of constitution especially for the effective working of a transparent system. Therefore, it is even more important that the judiciary should also come under public scrutiny for ensuring transparency. This article analysis the exceptional judgment of the Supreme Court in which it tried to bring this transparency into effectiveness.
This article provides a chronology of all the suits and appeal filed by the activist, SubhashAgarwal and Supreme Court. It analyses the journey of this dispute first in the High Court and then in Supreme Court.
Finally, it shows limelight on the future effect of this judgment especially on the Right to Information of Indian citizens.
Introduction
Answering SubhashAgrawal’s question, ‘how transparent is transparent enough’[1], Supreme Court of India gave a rare judgment in which it ruled against itself.The Supreme Court on 12th November,2019 held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority and falls within the ambit of the Right to Information Act (RTI). A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice RanjanGogoi upheld the 2010 Delhi High Court verdict and dismissed three appeals filed by Secretary General of the Supreme Court and the Central Public Information officer of the apex court.[2]
Background
Activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed a petition in 2007[3], seeking a copy of the resolution dated 7.5.1997 which requires every judge to make a declaration of all assets. Back then, declaration of assets by the Supreme Court was made to the Chief Justice of India and was not even voluntary in nature to put it out in public domain.
Journey in Delhi High Court
The Supreme Court refused to share the asset declaration resolution. Agrawal moved the CIC, which ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls under the ambit and it directed the Chief Justice of India’s office to disclose the correspondence details under the RTI Act.
The Supreme Court moved the Delhi High Court in January 2009 challenging the CIC ruling. The single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the CIC ruling pronouncing that the CJI came under the ambit of the RTI Act.The Supreme Court approached a bigger bench of the Delhi High Court against the single-judge verdict in the RTI case.
Two months later, in January 2010, the bench ruled that the office of the CJI is a public authority and comes under the ambit of the RTI Act.
Self-approach by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court approached itself by filing a petition against the Delhi High Court ruling. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court judgment in the RTI case in 2010. Six years later, it referred the RTI case to a five-judge Constitution bench.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court, on 12th November, 2019, gave judgment on the following three questions[4]:
1) Whether the respondent had any “right to information” under Section 2(j) of the Act in respect of the information regarding making of declarations by the Judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to 1997 Resolution?
2) If the answer to question (1) above is in affirmative, whether CJI held the “information” in his “fiduciary” capacity, within the meaning of the expression used in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act?
3) Whether the information about the declaration of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the Act?
The above questions were answered in favour of the respondent as the Full Bench has held that:
1) The respondent had the right to information under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act with regard to the information in the form of declarations of assets made pursuant to the 1997 Resolution.
2) The Chief Justice did not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship and, therefore, the information was not exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
3) In the present case the particulars sought for by the respondent did not warrant protection under Section 8(1)(j).
So, the Constitution bench upheld the ruling of the CIC and two subsequent verdicts of the Delhi High Court.
Future impact of this judgment in Indian Scenario
This case does not only deals with question of transparency in Indian Judiciary but also with its independence. Through this rare judgment Supreme Court declared that “transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence”. Cautioning that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance, the top court in its judgment held that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.
With the CJI’s office coming under the RTI Act, the ordinary citizen can seek information regarding assets of the judges and also the reason for their appointment. National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from “public scrutiny”.
Conclusion
While the Chief Justice of India is designated as one of the competent authorities under Section2(e) of the RTI Act, the Chief Justice of India besides discharging his role as ‘head of the judiciary’ also performs a multitude of tasks assigned to him under the Constitution and various other enactments. In the absence of any indication that the office of the Chief Justice of
India is a separate establishment with its own CPIO (Central Public Information Officer), it cannot be canvassed that the office of the CPIO of the Supreme Court is different from the office of the CJI (that is, the Chief Justice of India).
This judgment has in turn led to more growth of human rights in India by ensuring that the judiciary shall also come into the ambit of RTI Act.
References
3. How Transparent is Transparent Enough, Selecting Europe’s Judges by Alberto Alemanno.
[1]Alberto Alemanno, How Transparent is Transparent Enough, Selecting EuropesJudges , 202–221 (2015).
[2]CJI under RTI Act: A rare case where Supreme Court ruled against itself India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/cji-under-rti-act-a-rare-case-where-supreme-court-ruled-against-itself-1618528-2019-11-13 (last visited Mar 14, 2020).
[3]CentralPublic Information Officer, Supreme CourtOfINDIA v. SubhashChandra Agrawal, (2019) SCC Online SC 1459 (India).
[4]Id.
Lawcutor 