M J Antony: Judiciary goes transparent

OUT OF COURT

While the bureaucracy and different wings of the military expressed anxiety over the enforcement of the new Right to Information Act in recent days, the apex judiciary has launched unprecedented steps to let in the sunlight into its working. For the common man, the courts are forbidding establishments, with their own shibboleths and bleak attire. Lawyers are the only medium to this dark world and they have not been very helpful either, going by the literature about them. Therefore, the present attempt by the Supreme Court to throw open its doors to let out information comes as a pleasant surprise.

In fact, the role of the court in developing the right of the citizen to official information has not been fully recognised. In 1982, the court declared that the government could not claim privilege on information which affected the fundamental rights of the citizens, except when it touched upon the sovereignty and integrity of the country or for the maintenance of law and order.

The constitution bench judgement in SP Gupta vs Union of India expanded the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of expression (Art 19) and the right to life and liberty (Art 21). The right to information was read into these provisions. It then directed the Central government to disclose the process of consultation in the appointment and transfer of certain high court judges. Letters of the then law minister and the Chief Justice of India were shown to the court and the press published parts of them. The court has frequently rejected the claim of privilege by the government in purely administrative matters as in the "Hawala" cases of the 1990s and, more recently, in the Taj Mahal corridor case involving former UP Chief Minister Mayawati.

Having taken such an affirmative stand, it could not stand behind when the right to information was made a statutory right in the new Act. Two immediate steps taken by the Supreme Court are the publication of a quarterly newsletter giving all relevant information about its functioning and the release of a handbook giving the layman tips on how to move the court. The newsletter, which will come out in the new year, is expected to give data such as the figures relating to the pending cases, the disposal rate and classification of petitions. Earlier, these details were available only to researchers, especially foreign scholars. One chief justice in the 1980s promised to give such details every month, but his good intentions did not bear fruit. The new Chief Justice YK Sabharwal is now making a more determined effort on this front.

One of the most sought-after books in legal circles these days is a small publication by the Supreme Court giving all information a common man would like to know about the institution. It attempts to demystify the court, the registry and their functioning. It almost invites the citizens to come to the court. This is something which no court in the world has done. The handbook tells one how to file cases in the court step by step, describes the fee to be paid and do's and don'ts. It goes on to explain how the matters are analysed in the registry and posted before the benches set up to deal with particular subjects like crime, tax and public interest litigation. The care shown by the court in guiding the citizen is almost paternal. Petitions can even be filed on the Internet. A prisoner can send his petition through the superintendent. Even posts cards from prisoners have been treated as petitions. Such useful tips are given liberally in the handbook. Apart from these, the court at present has a better rapport with the media.

The Supreme Court expects the high courts and other courts in the country to follow its example, according to officials. This would depend upon the initiative of the chief justices of the high courts and the presiding officers of other courts and tribunals. So far, only the consumer forums have shown a liberal approach.

With the enforcement of the Right to Information Act, the scenario is set to change. Though the courts are not specifically mentioned in the Act, the definition of "competent authority" includes the Chief Justice of India and the chief justices of the high courts. "Public authority" means any authority or body established or constituted by the Constitution. Such public authority is obliged to publish particulars of its organisation, functions and duties. It shall also disclose the powers and duties of its officers and the procedures followed by them in the decision-making process. Therefore, the courts cannot remain outside the winds of change. The process is bound to be slow as the colonial traditions would not easily give way to the liberal norms of the new century. But the lead has come from the Supreme Court itself.