“Delhi HC rejects Supreme Court’s claim on CJI’s office being exempt from RTI, citing checks and balances. Upholding accountability, the verdict emphasizes well-defined standards for judicial independence.”
In an unusual display of checks and balances within the judiciary, the Delhi high court on Tuesday rejected the contention of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was beyond the ambit of the Right to Information Act.
A full bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justices Vikramjit Sen and S Muralidhar unanimously dispelled the fear raised by the apex court that the extension of RTI to the CJIs office would undermine judicial independence. Referring to a resolution adopted by Supreme Court judges in 1997, a resolution adopted by a conference of chief justices in 1999 and the UN-sponsored 2001 Bangalore Principles of judicial conduct, the high court said, Well-defined and publicly known standards and procedures complement, rather than diminish, the notion of judicial independence.
Dismissing the Supreme Courts appeal for the second time in four months, the high court said, Higher the judiciary , higher the accountability . Tuesdays verdict upheld the path-breaking ruling made in September 2009 by Justice Ravindra Bhatt.
Unhappy with the HCs verdict, the SC has decided to file an appeal before itself now. Echoing the SCs position, law minister Veerappa Moily expressed concern about the fallout of the high court verdict on judicial independence. The appeal is to be filed by the Chief Public Information Office of the apex court.
The views of the CJI on the issue are well known as he had, in an interview only on Monday , stressed the need to balance right to information with the concern for independence of judiciary. Citing international parallels, he had said that some functions of the judiciary were exempt from right to information the world over.
The HC verdict came in the context of the prolonged controversy over whether the declaration of assets made by judges should be put in the public domain.
