Watch Free Classes

The five-judge bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna pronounced the verdict with a 3:2 majority. The verdict comes in a plea filed by the Supreme Court Secretary-General challenging the Delhi High Court’s 2010 order holding that the CJI’s office is a “public authority” and falls under the ambit of the Right to Information Act. The concept of judicial independence is not the judge’s personal privilege but responsibility cast on the person, the HC had said in its ruling.

In April 2019, the SC bench had reserved its verdict on the appeals. 

What is the Right to Information Act?

The act is one of the most important acts which empowers ordinary citizens to question the Government and its work. This has been widely used by citizens and media to uncover corruption, progress in government work, expenses-related information, etc.

All constitutional authorities and agencies are owned and controlled. Also, those organisations that the Government substantially finances come under the act’s purview. The act also mandates public authorities of the union government or state government to provide timely response to the citizens’ request for information. 

The act also imposes penalties if the authorities delay responding to the citizen in the stipulated time.

Background for the supreme court judgement of CJI Comes Under The Ambit Of RTI Act.

The Supreme Court of India’s (SC) Constitution Bench has held that the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) office would be covered by the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), as the CJI is a public authority under the Right to Information Act. This was the Background for the supreme court judgement of CJI Comes Under the Ambit Of RTI Act.

Ministers’ and legislators’ asset declarations give citizens more relevant information about their representatives. Before this decision, however, Supreme Court judges have declined to provide details about their fortunes.

Significance of the Verdict

  • Through the judgement, the SC upheld the Delhi High Court judgement (2010), which ruled that the CJI and the other justices of the SC are liable to disclose information as in the case of other public authorities under the purview of the RTI Act.
  • The outcome is that the office of the CJI will now entertain RTI applications.
  • It opens the doors for transparency in the judiciary. The higher judiciary in India has been criticised for its opaqueness under the doctrine of the independence of the judiciary.
  • The verdict underlines the Supreme Court’s balance between transparency and protecting its independence.
  • While ruling that the office of the CJI is a public authority, the Supreme Court held that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance and that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.
  • It can boost Good Governance, as now the judiciary, executive, and the legislature all come under the ambit of the RTI Act.
  • The key takeaway from the judgement is that disclosing details of serving judges’ assets is now not a violation of their right to privacy.

 Challenges

  • Lack of clarity: The SC argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute, and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. However, the public interest is nowhere defined. A question frequently arises: What did SC Rule about CJI in relation with RTI?
  • Therefore, RTI requests have to be decided after carefully considering a whole range of issues, balancing disclosure with privacy.
  • Dilution of RTI Act: The potency of the RTI Act is under the scanner after recent amendments done to the RTI Act.
  • The Amendment empowers the Central Government to decide tenure, salary, allowances, and other terms of service of Information Commissioners.
  • The Commission, which is vested by law with status, independence, and authority, will now function as a department of the Central Government.
  • Administrative burden: The RTI Act 2005 did not create a new bureaucracy for implementing the law. It tasked and mandated officials in every office to deal with RTI requests. However, this adds to the administrative burden of the bureaucracy.

Conclusion:

More transparency is needed: After bringing SC judges under RTI, the next natural step would be to remove the secrecy surrounding judges’ appointments, which are made through the SC’s collegium system. So far we have seen Background for the supreme court judgement of CJI Comes Under The Ambit Of RTI Act.

The RTI Act has a screening committee: A screening committee (made up of civil society members) can be formed to lessen the administrative load of bureaucracy (in relation to RTI requests) by weeding out frivolous RTI requests. As a result, other institutions, such as registered political parties, are increasingly being brought under the RTI Act.