Case Law Details
Upholding the Central Information Commission (CIC) order that office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is well within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court Wednesday ruled that judges should declare their assets. In a historical judgement, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said judges are accountable but they are also subject to some constraints. He said, “A judge is not unaccountable as is sometimes wrongly understood and is subject to several constraints. The judicial branch lacks either the ’sword or the purse’ controlled by the other two branches.”
The judge also said that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority and it is well within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The court was hearing a appeal by the apex court’s Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) against the CIC’s order that the office of the Chief Justice of India is within the purview of RTI Act.
In a formal interaction with the reporters last Friday, Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had asserted that his office is out of the purview of the RTI Act.
The high court also directed the CPIO of the Supreme Court to release the information sought by the petitioner within four weeks. The court, however, refused to comment on the recent development of declaration of assets by judges of various state high courts.
During the hearing, Solicitor General G.E. Vahanvati contended that disclosure of information on personal assets by judges will affect the independence of the judicial system.
In a petition filed before the CIC, Subhash Chandra Agrawal, an RTI activist, had asked whether all the judges are declaring details of their assets, including those of their dependents, to the chief justice.
The judge while quoting an Australian judge stated, “Some standards can be prescribed by law, but the spirit of, and the quality of the service rendered by a profession depends far more on its observance of ethical standards. These are far more rigorous than legal standards…. They are learnt not by precept but by the example and influence of respected peers. Judicial standards are acquired, so to speak, by professional osmosis. They are enforced immediately by conscience.”
The court, while upholding the CIC order, also expressed the fear of misusing the information.
“Judgments of courts are to be based on reason, and discuss fairly what is argued. Judges, unlike other sections of members of the public, cannot meet unjustified personal attacks or tirades carried out against them, or anyone from their fraternity, no clarifications can be issued, no justification is given as propriety and canons of judicial ethics require them to maintain silence.”
“The judge is thus unable to go and explain his position to the people,” Justice Bhat observed.
“An honest, but strict or unpopular judge can be unfairly vilified, without anyone giving his version. Similarly, unfounded allegations of improper personal behaviour cannot be defended by the judge in public, even though they can be leveled freely they may tarnish his reputation or worse, and he would have to smart under them, under the haunting prospect of its being resuscitated every now and then,” the judge said while expressing his “experience in the case as humble”.
SUMMARY OF CASE LAW
Pursuant to a Full Court resolution of the Supreme Court of India made in 1997, the judges make a confidential declaration of their personal assets to the Chief Justice of India (“CJI”). The Applicant asked for information relating to this declaration under the Right to Information Act (“RTI”). When that information was denied, the Applicant appealed to the Central Information Commission which upheld the challenge and directed the PIO of the Supreme Court to provide the information. The Supreme Court filed a writ petition to challenge the said order of the CIC. HELD, upholding the right of the Applicant:
(1) The RTI Act is an important legislation to effectuate democracy. It is a powerful beacon which illuminates unlit corners of state activity, and those of public authorities which impact citizens’ daily lives, to which they previously had no access. It mandates disclosure of all manner of information. No justification for seeking the information is necessary. Parliamentary intention in enacting this law was to arm citizens with the mechanism to scrutinize government and public processes, and ensure transparency subject to limits;
(2) The CJI is a “public authority” and the argument that the asset declarations are held by him in a capacity other than that of CJI is incongruous. Though the CJI performs various functions, all of them are traceable to his position as CJI;
(3) The argument that the declarations were voluntarily filed by the judges, on a “moral” basis, without mandate of law and consequently not “information” u/s 2 (f) cannot be accepted. The declarations were filed pursuant to the 1997 Resolution. The said Resolution reflects the best practices to be followed and form the standards of ethical behaviour of judges. It codifies “core” judicial values which are an inalienable part of what a judge is and how he is expected to behave. It binds the judges and forms a set of conventions of the Constitution. To conclude otherwise would endanger credibility of the institution, which prides by its adherence to the doctrines of precedent, and stare decisis;
(4) The argument that the confidential asset declarations cannot be disclosed as it would entail breach of a fiduciary duty by the CJI is also not acceptable. A fiduciary relationship is one whereby a person places complete confidence in another in regard to his affairs. From this perspective, the CJI is not in a fiduciary vis-à-vis Judges of the Supreme Court. The asset information is not held by the CJI in a fiduciary capacity. The mere fact that the declaration is marked “confidential” is of no relevance;
(5) However, the right to information has to be reconciled with the fundamental right to privacy. S. 8 (1) (j) bars the disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless if the PIO is satisfied that disclosure is in public interest. Pursuant to this,the contents of the asset declarations are entitled to be treated as personal information and may be accessed only in accordance with the procedure prescribed u/s 8(1)(j); they are not otherwise subject to disclosure;
Note: The Full Court of the Supreme Court has now resolved to place the information in the Court website, after modalities are duly worked out. Some High Courts, including the Bombay & Delhi High Courts have resolved similarly to make the information public.
