In a path-breaking verdict, the Delhi High Court today ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) came within the ambit of the Right to Information Act. A division bench of the high court dismissed the Supreme Court’s appeal against its earlier ruling that had brought the post under the Act.
The high court judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah. Rejecting the Supreme Court’s contention that bringing the CJI’s office under the Act would hamper judicial independence, the high court stated: “Judicial independence is not a privilege to a judge but a responsibility.”
The issue before the high court was declaration of assets of Supreme Court judges. On a petition moved by an activist, the Central Information Commission had ordered declaration of the judges’ assets. However, the Supreme Court registrar moved the high court against the direction.
The judges of the Supreme Court have since declared their assets on the court’s website. However, this was done according to a 1997 resolution voluntarily passed by the full court of the Supreme Court.
The Delhi High Court judges also decided to declare their assets today. Judges from some other high courts have also declared their assets in recent months.
It may be recalled that last month the Supreme Court had moved before itself a petition challenging the Chief Information Commissioner’s order directing it to make public information pertaining to appointment of three judges.
The commission had also sought information on the alleged call received by a Madras High Court judge from a Union minister on a pending case. A Supreme Court bench had stayed this order.
Today’s judgment of the high court will intensify the debate on the Right to Information. The high court judgment itself pointed out that it concerned “the balance of rights of individuals and equities against the backdrop of paradigm changes brought about by the legislature through the Act ushering in an era of transparency, probity and accountability as also the increasing expectation of the civil society that the judicial organ, like all other public institutions, will also offer itself for public scrutiny”.
The judgment also ruled that the Chief Justice of India did not hold his post in a fiduciary capacity vis-à-vis other judges. “The judges of the Supreme Court hold independent office, and there is no hierarchy, in their judicial functions, which places them at a different plane than the CJI. The declarations are not furnished to the CJI in a private relationship or as a trust but in discharge of the constitutional obligation to maintain higher standards and probity of judicial life and are in the larger public interest. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the asset information shared with the CJI, by the judges of the Supreme Court, are held by him in the capacity of fiduciary, which if directed to be revealed, would result in breach of such duty.”
