Office of the CJI and RTI Act - SC Ruling

Why in news?

The Supreme Court ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

What is the case on?

The judgment pertained to three cases based on requests for information filed by Delhi-based RTI activist Subhash Agarwal. [Click here to know more on the cases]
All of these cases eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Two of the three issues were stuck down.
The matter the Supreme Court wanted to address was the question whether or not the office of the CJI is under the RTI Act.

How did the case evolve?

Request - In one of the three cases, Agarwal had asked whether all SC judges had declared their assets and liabilities to the CJI following a resolution passed in 1997.
He had not requested for copies of the declarations, but only the status of judges’ compliance.
[The 1997 resolution requires judges to declare to the CJI the assets held by them - own name, spouse's name and in any person dependent on them.]

CPIO - The CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) of the Supreme Court said the office of the CJI was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
CIC - The matter reached the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).
There, a full Bench, headed by then CIC Wajahat Habibullah, in January 2009, directed disclosure of information.
Delhi HC - The Supreme Court approached the Delhi High Court against the CIC order.
The High Court held that the office of the CJI was a public authority under the RTI Act and was covered by its provisions.
Larger Bench - The Supreme Court then approached a larger Bench.
The larger Bench held that the earlier judgment of the HC (Justice Ravindra Bhatt) was “both proper and valid and needs no interference”.
SC plea to SC - The Supreme Court in 2010 petitioned itself challenging the Delhi High Court order.
The matter was placed before a Division Bench, which decided that it should be heard by a Constitution Bench.
As the setting up of the Constitution Bench remained pending, Agarwal filed another RTI application.
The Supreme Court told him on June 2, 2011 that orders for constituting the Bench “are awaited”.
Finally, in 2018, CJI Ranjan Gogoi constituted the Bench, which has now pronounced its judgement.

What is the SC ruling?

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court ruling of 2010.
It thus dismissed three appeals filed by the Secretary General and the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court.
The SC held that the office of the CJI is a public authority.
However, it held that RTI could not be used as a tool of surveillance.
It said that judicial independence had to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.

What does the order mean?

The outcome of the ruling is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications.
It enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets.
The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges.
The key take-away from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy.
The verdict underlines the balance Supreme Court needs between transparency and protecting its independence.
The move opens the doors to RTI requests that will test the frontiers of what has been a rather opaque system.
However, what new limitations are drawn would decide how effective the move would get to be.

What is the significance?

The RTI Act is instrumental in enhancing accountability, citizen activism and, consequently, participative democracy.
The Supreme Court judgment paves the way for greater transparency.
It could now impinge upon issues such as disclosure, under the RTI Act, by other institutions such as registered political parties, etc.

Source: Indian Express, The Hindu