The Supreme Court refused to share the decision on the declaration of assets. Agrawal appealed to the CIC, which ruled that the position of Chief Justice of India fell within the scope of the RTI Act and that the Supreme Court could not refuse the information requested under the RTI Act. However, placing the CJI office under the RTI would not undermine the independence of the judiciary, said Judge D.Y. Chandrachud, who read a separate statement on the case. The panel`s deliberations on the appointment and surprise of judges or lawyers should be made public, and the information can be separated on a case-by-case basis under the ITRs, taking into account the greater public interest, the lawyer said. On 4 April 2019, the Constitutional Chamber reserved the verdict. On November 13, the Supreme Court announced its verdict. It noted that the independence of the judiciary was not contrary to the requirement of transparency. Whether or not information is disclosed must be decided on a case-by-case basis by weighing competing allegations of public interest.
For example, the right to information may have to be weighed against the right to privacy. In CIC`s first order on the college`s decision-making, it instructed its CPIO to re-examine the application, taking into account any objections from third parties, as provided for in Article 11(1) of the RTI Law. With respect to CIC`s second order regarding personal property, the court upheld the delhi Supreme Court`s decision and ordered the CPIO to disclose the relevant information to SC Agarwal. On the 16th. In December 2015 (RBI v. Jayantilal N Mistry et al.), the Supreme Court stated: « We had long noticed that public information officers, under one of the exceptions in section 8 of the ITRs Act, prevented the general public from getting their hands on the legal information to which they were entitled. » The ICC had instructed the Office of the Chief Justice of India to disclose the details of the correspondence in accordance with the ITR Act. The Supreme Court rejected it. Judges HL Dattu and RM Lodha later became Chief Justices of India.
A five-judge constitutional bank, presided over by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, announced the verdict at 2:30 p.m. The Chamber had heard three civil appeals against the decision of the Delhi Supreme Court, filed by the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court and the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court. The case addresses issues such as the disclosure of assets by judges and transparency in the functioning of the panel. The Delhi Supreme Court`s initial decision in this case came in 2009 from a single bank of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, who was recently appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. The plea was filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Although the Supreme Court`s CPIO stated that the CJI office was not a public authority under the ITRs Act, the case was brought before the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), where a full bank run by the then CIC Wajahat Habibullah was established on June 6. January 2009 ordered the disclosure of information. Here, when he appeared for Agarwal, lead lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that it was because of the « doctrine of necessity » that the Supreme Court heard these appeals, as it should not have been allowed to try its own case.
Justice Khanna, who shared his decision with Chief Justice Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta, noted that « transparency and accountability should go hand in hand. » Increased transparency under the ITRs does not pose a threat to the independence of the judiciary. However, the panel agreed with one voice that the right to information under the ITRs is not absolute. The right to know a citizen should be reconciled with the right to privacy of judges. Interestingly, Judges DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, who served on the bench and ruled that the CJI was under the RTI Act, did not declare their assets themselves. The judge who headed the CJI`s office reports to the RTI, now sits on the Supreme Court The Supreme Court had said it had made changes in the functioning of the college system and that members had now begun interacting with potential candidates. The Supreme Court applied to the Delhi Supreme Court in January 2009 to challenge CIC`s decision. The Supreme Court`s reasoning before the Delhi Supreme Court was based on the premise that the declaration of assets to the JRC was « personal information » of judges and therefore did not fall under the RTI Act. In this context, he requested that the College`s discussions be made public and that the information be shared either under the ACCESS Act or on a case-by-case basis. The disclosure of personal data has been possible in accordance with § 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
The law gave discretion to the Public Information Officer (PIO). The Supreme Court appealed CIC`s order to the Delhi Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Ravindra Bhatt (who was later appointed as a Supreme Court Judge) ruled on 2 September 2009 that « the Office of the Supreme Judge of India is a public authority under the RTI Act and is covered by its provisions ». The Supreme Court then turned to a larger number of judges, consisting of then Delhi Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, Justice Vikramjit Sen and Judge S Muralidhar, who delivered his verdict on September 13. In January 2010, Justice Bhatt`s decision was « both appropriate and valid and does not require interference. » Judge Sanjiv Khanna reads the majority decision, says that the CJI office according to the definition of « public authority » under RTI Justice Bhat considered it the duty of the Office of the Chief Justice of India to disclose the details of the personal property of the other judges of the court. He noted that « any power – the judiciary is no exception – is held accountable in a modern constitution. » Another RTI activist, Anil Galgali, said the decision would facilitate the exchange of information on the panel`s deliberations when appointing judges. He said that so far there have also been disagreements in the views of the government and the courts on the issue of transparency, this order has sent a message to governments to become more transparent. « This would help both ITR activists and ordinary citizens get information, » he added. Of the other two ITRs filed by Agarwal, one was to ask the Supreme Court for « copies of the complete correspondence exchanged between the constitutional authorities concerned, with file notes relating to the appointment of Judges H L Dattu, A K Ganguly and R M Lodha to replace the seniority of Judge P Shah ». The other request concerned documents related to a « revelation by Judge R Raghupati of Madras HC about a Union Minister who had approached him on a matter pending before the Honourable Judge of his court ». These problems have remained blocked; The question that the Supreme Court wanted to deal with was whether or not the CJI office was under the RTI Act.
By Aneesha Mathur: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Office of the Supreme Judge of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act. Today, the Constitutional Chamber upheld the decision of the ICC and two subsequent decisions of the Delhi Supreme Court. Since the office of the CJI is under the RTI Law, the ordinary citizen can obtain information about the property of the judges and the reason for their appointment. He had argued that the Supreme Court had always upheld transparency in the functioning of other state bodies, but that it developed cold feet when its own problems required special attention. The chamber upheld the Delhi Supreme Court`s 2010 ruling that the JIA does not retain information on the personal property of other judges in a fiduciary capacity. Information held by a person in trust is exempt from disclosure under the ITRs. Justice Sen retired as a Supreme Court judge, while Justice Murlidhar is a sitting supreme court judge. Mr. B. Hari Special Duty Officer/Transparency Officer of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Tel.
(Fax) No. 011-23074211 E-Mail:supremecourt[at]nic.in In this context, Judge Khanna therefore considered that personal data should only be disclosed by judges under the ITRs if such disclosure served the overriding public interest. The following officials have been appointed as the Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority of the Supreme Court of India pursuant to Section 5(1) and Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which came into force on 1 February 2007. The majority of the judges ruled that the CJI office should be subject to the law. While the public interest requires accountability, the independence of the judiciary comes first, Judge Sanjiv Khanna said of the majority decision. After that, the case was brought before the Supreme Court by its Secretary General and the CPIO. The Court`s OFC challenged HC`s decision on the grounds that disclosure of judges` « personal data » under the ITRs Act would compromise their judicial independence. The decision underscores the balance the Supreme Court needs between transparency and protecting its independence. The move is important because it opens the door to ITRs that will test the limits of a fairly opaque system. The new red lines drawn determine the effectiveness of the stage. On 4 April, a five-judge constitutional chamber reserved its verdict on appeals filed in 2010 by the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court and his Central Information Commissioner against the Supreme Court and the orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC). By Prabhash K Dutta: Declaring that « transparency does not undermine the independence of the judiciary », the Supreme Court Bank, headed by Supreme Justice Ranjan Gogoi, today rejected the Supreme Court`s request challenging a decision by the Delhi Supreme Court that placed it under the Right to Information Act (RTI).