Office of Chief Justice of India brought under Purview of RTI Act – Landmark Judgment of Supreme Court about Accountability of CJI
This article talks about a landmark judgment of Honorable Supreme Court which states that the office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) will come under the ambit of provisions of RTI act (Right to Information Act). It discusses the previous concerns which hindered the placement of CJI office under purview of RTI and by what arguments the bench of Supreme Court addressed this concern. It also mentions the origin of this case and impact of this judgment.
Background
What is Public Authority?
What is Mandatory for a Public Authority?
Concern of Judicial Independence versus Judicial Openness
Landmark Judgment about Office of CJI (Chief Justice of India)
Remarks of Justice Chandrachud
Impact of Judgment about CJI Office
Conclusion
Background
Back in year 2007, an RTI activist named Subhash Chandra Agarwal file an RTI seeking information about collegiums system. The CPIO (Chief Public Information Officer) of Supreme Court denied the disclosure of this information on the grounds of non coverage under the provisions of RTI act (Right to Information Act). Activist challenged it in front of Chief Information Commissioner which declared the office of CJI as a public authority under RTI provisions. Supreme Court moved to Delhi High Court against it and tried to defend.
What is Public Authority?
According to section 2(h) of RTI act, a public authority is any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted
- under or by Constitution
- by parliament or any law made by parliament
- by state legislature or any law made by state legislature
- by notification issued or order made by appropriate government
Or a public authority may be
- a body owned or controlled or financed by government
- an NGO financed directly or indirectly by appropriate government or government funds
Thus, overall there are two types of public authorities under RTI act. One type includes those institutions set up by parliament, state legislature, constitution or notification issued by appropriate government. Its examples are NGT (National Green Tribunal), FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) etc. Second type includes all those institutions receiving financial support from government. Its examples are Public Sector Undertakings, Trusts, and NGOs etc.
What is Mandatory for a Public Authority?
It is a mandatory for a public authority to provide suo motto disclosure of information. This mandate is to enforce provisions of RTI act in interest of promoting transparency and accountability in functioning of these institutions. If office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) is placed under RTI, it becomes mandatory on its part to disclose suo motto information and requested information.
Concern of Judicial Independence versus Judicial Openness
Judiciary is an important pillar of democracy. Supreme Court is final interpreter of law of land. This is the last resort for citizens for defending their fundamental rights. It is independent from other organs of state. Its independence is guaranteed by the constitution. Moreover, there are enough checks and balance in the system to ensure that judiciary does not get manipulated by any vested interests. Such interests may be those of political parties, government, media, multinational corporations etc. Thus citizens have placed strong faith in judiciary. The concern was that RTI provisions can be misused by vested interests. There can be compromise with judicial independence and can impact the justice.
Landmark Judgment about Office of CJI (Chief Justice of India)
The constitutional bench of Supreme Court has passed a landmark judgment. The bench placed office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) under the provisions of Right to Information act and declared CJI office as a public authority. The constitutional bench said that since Supreme Court itself is a public authority under provisions of RTI act then office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) should also be a public authority under mandate of RTI act (Right to Information Act). The arguments put forward by the judges in this context are given below:
Justice Sanjeev Khanna
Justice Khanna said that transparency and accountability should go hand in hand. Only through promotion of transparency, higher judiciary can be held accountable for their failures. His comments remind the famous quote that Supreme Court is supreme but not infallible.
Justice D Y Chandrachud
Justice Chandrachud said that judicial independence cannot be secured by secrecy and opaqueness. Judicial independence should be secured by making checks and balances through constitutional and legal measures. People have right to know about inner functioning of office of Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Justice N V Ramana
Justice Ramana came up with a cautionary note. He acknowledges rights of citizens but these rights are not reasonable. According to him there should be a balance between rights of citizens and privacy of judges. He directed Chief Public Information Officer of Supreme Court to disclose personal information of judges only if it serves larger public interest. He laid out an exhaustive list for the reference of CPIO to determine whether the requested information pertains to the life of individual judge or not. Rest of the information is to be placed in public domain.
Remarks of Justice Chandrachud
Apart from this judgment, Justice D Y Chandrachud, who was also a part of this constitutional bench for deciding the position of office of CJI under RTI act, called for greater reforms in judicial appointments. According to him, existing collegiums system for the appointment of judges should be replaced with a more transparent and open system. It is necessary to maintain the confidence of public in judiciary which can be done only through promotion of transparency. Citizens have right to know about procedure and standards of collegiums system, domain specialization and performance of judges.
Impact of Judgment about CJI Office
The landmark judgment delivered by Honorable Supreme Court against itself has not just brought office of Chief Justice of India under the ambit of Right to Information act but it will prevent other institutions from falling out of its purview. Other institutions who try to resist the provisions of RTI will have to come under the screws of RTI act. Their arguments will no longer be valid.
Conclusion
The landmark judgment is a step in direction of augmenting judicial transparency. Still larger reforms are required. In the past we, witnessed the efforts of government to bring NJAC (National Judicial Appointment Committee) so as to improve the appointment of judges. Those efforts could not succeed. If judiciary is now trying to rectify the past errors, then it should be welcomed and legislature should reemphasize the correction of collegiums system. This will strengthen the credibility of judiciary and public confidence.
See Other Posts: Police Reforms in India, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
No comments