SC agrees to reveal information under RTI Act

In an apparent climbdown, the Supreme Court today agreed before the Delhi High Court to reveal information under Right to Information (RTI) Act pertaining to action taken by Chief Justice of India on a complaint against an Allahabad High Court judge. 

Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati, appearing for Supreme Court registry, made a statement before the High Court that although he does not accept the "correctness" of Central Information Commission (CIC) judgement but the information would be provided under the transparency act.     

The CIC had on July 16 held that the office of CJI comes within the purview of the transparency law and the apex court is under obligation to reveal the details of action taken on the complaint.     

 

The AG informed the court that the July 16 order was based on earlier judgement of the CIC which has been challenged in the High Court and the judgement is reserved.     

He also informed the court that no action has been taken on the complaint against Allahabad High Court sitting judge.     

The Supreme Court had during earlier hearings before CIC maintained that the information relating to a High Court judge was with the Chief Justice of India and his office does not come under the abmit of RTI.

The AG said the appeal was filed as the apex court did not agree with the rationale of the judgement, and non-filing of appeal would have technically amounted to accepting it.     

The CIC, while passing the order, had rejected the plea of Supreme Court registry that the office of CJI is distinct from the apex court and cannot be said to be under the purview of the RTI Act.     

The Commission had passed the order on a plea of a 77-year old RTI applicant P K Dalmia who sought to know the fate of his complaint, filed with CJI, of alleged malpractices by Ambwani, the designated company judge, in the liquidation case of UP State Cement Corporation Limited.     

Dalmia then filed an RTI application to know the fate of his complaint which was rejected by the registry of Supreme Court which said that complaint against a High Court or Supreme Court Judge does not come under its jurisdiction.