The year gone by witnessed a tug of war between the Central Information Commission and Supreme Court, which saw its judges make public their assets for the first time, and a row over key amendments to the RTI Act even as the government remained indecisive on a new chief for the panel.
The Commission's directive to Supreme Court to disclose how many judges were declaring their asset details before the Chief Justice of India was upheld by the Delhi High Court which rejected the relief plea filed by the apex court.
In a landmark judgement, the High Court agreed with the information panel that the Chief Justice of India's office was very much covered under the Right to Information Act and necessary information should be provided whenever asked by the applicants as per provisions of the transparency law.
While the case was being debated in media, two Justices from Punjab and Haryana High Court and Karnataka High Court voluntarily put their asset details on their websites.
This was followed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and all the 20 Supreme Court judges who "voluntarily" furnished details of their assets which were later put on the official website of the apex court.
The disclosure, though voluntary in nature, was seen as a big victory for activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal who had filed a number of applications relating to transparency in judicial matters.
However, the Supreme Court again appealed against the order in a division bench of the High Court raising questions over implications of the single bench order on judicial functioning but could not manage a stay on the same.
Another application filed by Agrawal seeking details of the alleged interference of a Union minister, who had reportedly approached Justice R Raghupathi of Madras High Court regarding a sub-judice matter, also came before the CIC.
The transparency panel again agreed with the position of Agrawal that as CJI was being covered under the RTI Act there was no reason to deny the details without invoking confidentiality clauses, and allowed the disclosure of the information.
The Commission, while hearing a separate application of Agrawal, also asked the Supreme Court to give details why some senior judges were superseded while giving promotions.
The Supreme Court which failed to satisfy transparency panel with its arguments avoided Delhi High Court and filed a stay appeal before itself.
In one of the rarest moments of Indian judicial system, the apex court gave relief to itself and stayed the CIC order in both the matters.
But the year was not only about Supreme Court and CIC. The intention of the Government to amend the RTI Act by adding provisions for rejecting "vexatious and frivolous" RTI pleas came under fire from activists from across the country.
The controversy erupted when President Pratibha Patil during her inaugural address at the annual convention of the Central Information Commission mentioned about the amendments saying it would strengthen the Act.
It was followed by a meeting of all the Information Commissioners from across the country, convened by Minister of State for Personnel and Training Prithviraj Chavan, where he made clear the intentions of the Government to bring the amendments in the Act.
The proposal was strongly objected to by the gathering of Information Commissioners, who said there was no need to amend the Act and that concerns of the Government could be addressed by framing simple rules in this regard.
Social activists including Aruna Roy, Medha Patkar, Shekhar Singh, Arvind Kejariwal along with hundreds of other activists launched a campaign to oppose the proposed move forcing Government to clarify that any amendments would be introduced only after it is discussed in a public forum.
The campaign was followed by another one wherein activists demanded transparency in selecting the new CIC as incumbent Wajahat Habibullah had tendered his resignation and expressed keenness to head the newly-formed Information Commission in Jammu and Kashmir. The government remained indecisive on the new candidate after it could not agree with the Opposition on the matter.
The transparency law showed its worth by bringing into the public domain several so-called confidential details on the "operational lapses" by Mumbai police during 26/11.
Through her RTI pleas, Vinita Kamte -- wife of slain police officer Ashok Kamte -- found out that there were several "gaps" in the operation undertaken by Mumbai Police on November 26, 2008 when a group of 10 armed terrorists struck at different places in the metropolis.
Several other activists including Anuj Dhar's campaign seeking details of death of former prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Chadrachur Ghose's attempt to seek details of Subhash Chandra Bose's death also grabbed media headlines in 2009.
A survey, commissioned by government and undertaken by Price WaterHouse Coopers, found that even after four years of its inception, there is a serious flaw in implementation of transparency law with only 13 per cent of the rural and 33 per cent of the urban population aware about it.
