The Supreme Court today told the Delhi High Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) does not come within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and challenged its order directing the apex court to reveal information on judges assets.
The decision of the high court is “bad in law” and “deserves to be set aside”, the appeal filed by the Supreme Court Registry said, contending there were 58 errors in the 71-page verdict of its single-judge Bench. The high court, in its September 2 verdict on the controversial issue, had held that the CJI was a public authority and his office came within the purview of the transparency law.
The judgement was contrary to the stand taken by CJI K G Balakrishnan, who had consistently been maintaining that his office is beyond the purview of RTI.
“The analysis of the single judge is essentially wrong and the conclusions reached by him are unjustified in law and constitutional theory,” the appeal finalised by Attorney General G E Vahanvati said, adding “the analysis of the RTI Act done by the judge is essentially wrong.”
The apex court said that the office of the CJI was different from its registry and all the information received by the head of judiciary cannot be revealed under the transparency law. “The single judge erred in law in holding that all the information received by the CJI falls under the purview of the Act,” it said, adding the judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that office of the CJI and the registry are one and the same public authority.
It said the verdict saying that the 1997 resolution passed by the judges on disclosure of assets to the CJI was binding and had the “force of law” was an erroneous finding. “The judge failed to appreciate that the information regarding the declaration of assets by the Supreme Court judges was not covered under the RTI Act,” the appeal said, adding that the voluntary declaration of assets by the judges cannot be said to be held under the control of any public authority.
Although the Supreme Court had agreed to put the information regarding assets of judges on its website, the appeal filed deals with the larger issue of whether the CJI’s office comes within the ambit of the RTI Act.
The appeal against the single Bench verdict would be heard by a division Bench of the high court.
The single Bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat had rejected the plea that the disclosure of information on assets which was made to the the CJI was “unworkable”.
The verdict had come in the backdrop of an intense debate over the issue and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court judges to make public their assets on the official website.
The High Court, which described the transparency law as a "powerful beacon," had said the modalities for revealing information could be decided by the CJI in consultation with other judges. "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 declaration to be made," it had said. The court, dwelling upon the importance of the RTI Act-2005 had said, "the Parliamentary intention in enacting this law was to arm citizens with the mechanism to scrutinise government and public processes and ensure transparency." It did not agree with the apex court's contention that the 1997 resolution passed by the judges on disclosure of assets to the CJI was not binding, saying it was adopted to set the best ethical standards in the higher judiciary.
