Latest News
Back
RTI Applicable To Office Of CJI- Apex Court Upholds Delhi HC Judgment
The Apex Court has held that the office of Chief justice of India are “ public authorities” under the Right To Information Act while highlighting the importance of transparency in the Judiciary, the Supreme Court concluded that that office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the definition of "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
The judgment was rendered by a five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta, and Sanjiv Khanna wherein the decision passed by the Court upholds a 2010 decision of the Delhi High Court. Justice Sanjiv Khanna who wrote the majority opinion on behalf of the bench said that “Transparency does not undermine judicial independence. Judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand. Disclosure is a facet of public interest.”
Justice Ramana wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justice Ramana said that the exceptions in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act is to balance the right to privacy. He further said,
"There needs to be a balance and the whole bulwark of upholding it is on the Judiciary. Judiciary needs to be protected from such breach."
Justice Chandrachud also wrote a separate, concurring opinion stated, "Judicial independence does not mean that the judges are precluded from the rule of law."
This judgment comes in appeals filed against the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had held that the Supreme Court and the office of the Chief Justice of India are "public authorities" and thus come under the scope and ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. These appeals were filed by the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's Central Public Information Officer.
The questions before the Court included:
- Whether the office of Chief Justice of India would come within the ambit of the RTI Act?
- Whether the communications between Collegium and Govt and file noting of the Collegium would be covered under the RTI Act?
These appeals though filed in the year 2010 were referred to the Constitution Bench only in August 2016 by athree judge bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The Court reserved its judgment in the case on April 4, after two days of arguments. Attorney General for India KK Venugopal represented the Supreme Court and Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued for the respondent.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi had remarked that the Court was not in favour of a system of opaqueness, but the Judiciary shall not be compromised in the name of transparency. This remark came as a rebuttal to Bhushan's argument that opacity in the process of appointment of judges can lead to nepotism and arbitrariness. Therefore, it is held by the remarkable judgment passed by the Supreme Court that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.
