Sunlight is best disinfectant – Chief Justice of India is a public authority under RTI Act – Historic Judgement from Delhi HC
A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had in THE CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI Vs SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL & ANR - had held as follows:-
Point Nos. 1 & 2 Whether the CJI is a public authority and whether the CPIO, of the Supreme Court of India, is different from the office of the CJI; and if so, whether the Act covers the office of the CJI;
Answer: The CJI is a public authority under the Right to Information Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to asset declarations in his capacity as Chief Justice; that office is a “public authority” under the Act and is covered by its provisions.
Point No. 3: Whether asset declaration by Supreme Court judges, pursuant to the 1997 Resolution are “information”, under the Right to Information Act, 2005;
Answer: It is held that the second part of the respondent's application, relating to declaration of assets by the Supreme Court judges, is “information” within the meaning of the expression, under Section 2 (f) of the Act. The point is answered accordingly; the information pertaining to declarations given, to the CJI and the contents of such declaration are “information” and subject to the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
Point No. 4: If such asset declarations are “information” does the CJI hold them in a “fiduciary” capacity, and are they therefore, exempt from disclosure under the Act.
Answer: The petitioners' argument about the CJI holding asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity, (which would be breached if it is directed to be disclosed, in the manner sought by the applicant) is insubstantial. The CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship.
Point No. 5: Whether such information is exempt from disclosure by reason of Section 8(1) (j) of the Act.
Answer: It is held that the contents of asset declarations, pursuant to the 1997 resolution – and the 1999 Conference resolution- are entitled to be treated as personal information, and may be accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 8(1)(j); they are not otherwise subject to disclosure. As far as the information sought by the applicant in this case is concerned, (i.e. whether the declarations were made pursuant to the 1997 resolution) the procedure under Section 8(1)(j) is inapplicable.
Point No. (6) Whether the lack of clarity about the details of asset declaration and about their details, as well as lack of security renders asset declarations and their disclosure, unworkable.
Answer: These are not insurmountable obstacles; the CJI, if he deems it appropriate, may in consultation with the Supreme Court judges, evolve uniform standards, devising the nature of information, relevant formats, and if required, the periodicity of the declarations to be made. The forms evolved, as well as the procedures followed in the United States, - including the reduction norms- under the Ethics in Government Act, 1978, reports of the US Judicial Conference, as well as the Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act, 2007, which amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to: (1) restrict disclosure of personal information about family members of judges whose revelation might endanger them; and (2) extend the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain personal information of judges from financial disclosure reports may be considered.
The Supreme Court of India challenged the decision before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. A Larger Bench of the Delhi High Court headed by the Chief Justice. The larger Bench in a judgement overflowing with erudition of the highest order upheld the order of the Single Member Bench.
In the Epilogue to the judgement, the larger Bench observed,
“All persons possessing a portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust and that they are to account for their conduct in that trust.” 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. Behind this notion is a concept that the wielders of power – legislative, executive and judicial – are entrusted to perform their functions on condition that they account for their stewardship to the people who authorize them to exercise such power. Well defined and publicly known standards and procedures complement, rather than diminish, the notion of judicial independence. Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant .”
On the RTI Act, the High Court stated, It is undoubtedly the most significant event in the life of Indian Democracy.
Now the Supreme Court has the option of filing an appeal against the Delhi High Court order in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will be the appellant as well as the Judge! This is nothing new to assessees in tax matters – you have the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner issuing notices and adjudicating the cases!
The judgement was delivered yesterday and we bring it you today – please read the full text; it's a treatise.