Delhi high court rejects SC plea, says RTI Act applies to CJI's office

The legal fraternity was ecstatic about the Delhi high court’s ruling that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) comes within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, but said any attempt by the Supreme Court to appeal against the verdict would be ridiculous.

A Delhi high court bench of chief justice AP Shah and justices Vikramjit Sen and S Muralidhar upheld an earlier judgment by justice S Ravindra Bhat that the CJI is a “public authority” and falls under the purview of the RTI.

Legal experts hailed the verdict as an “historic judgment which would increase the stature of the judiciary in the eyes of the people”. They, however, unanimously dubbed the SC advocate’s decision to appeal against the order “unfortunate”.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the appellant and RTI activist SC Agarwal, said, “The SC appealing against the verdict would not only be comical and farcical, but also undermine the stature of the judiciary.”

Elaborating on the judgment, Bhushan said, “The court emphasised that the code of conduct (as per the 1997 resolution) and assets declaration are fully enforceable and every exercise of power by the CJI and the judiciary… consultations and decisions on appointment of judges and action on complaints against judges would fall under the ambit of the RTI Act.”

Former chief justices JS Verma and VN Khare said that with the high court upholding justice Bhat’s earlier order, the apex court must “accept defeat”. Challenging the order would be ridiculous, they said.

“I had said so after justice Bhat’s judgment, and am reiterating after this verdict that the Supreme Court should accept the judgment and avoid challenging it. The fear that RTI would be used to harass the judiciary is absolutely unfounded,” Verma said.

Khare said, “Even if somebody abuses the RTI, the Supreme Court is strong enough to take action against them. So, there is nothing wrong in your assets being in public domain. The judgment would only increase the accountability of the judiciary, and rightly so.”