Thanks to its earlier timidity on the disclosure of judges’ assets, the Supreme Court finds itself in a piquant situation where a high court has ruled against it. It may now have to file an appeal to itself for remedy.
On Wednesday, Delhi high court judge S Ravindra Bhat ruled that judges should declare their assets and that the office of the chief justice of India (CJI) comes under the purview of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Its ruling came in a case where the Supreme Court’s registry had filed an appeal against the Central Information Commission’s order to the same effect.
In his ruling, justice Bhat said that judges were accountable like anyone else in a democracy. “The dignity of judges adds value to democracy. Judges are under public attack and revealing assets and other information may increase the reputation of judges,” Bhat said.
While Supreme Court judges have already decided to disclose their assets, the Delhi high court’s ruling that the CJI’s office is a public authority has wider ramifications. It could mean that other kinds of information held by the CJI may also be accessible through the RTI Act.
Two former chief justices — JS Verma and VN Khare — termed as “bold” and “laudable” justice Bhat’s judgment. But attorney-general Goolam E Vahanvati, who appeared on behalf of the Supreme Court against the CIC’s order, says the judgment “has wide ramifications”.
According to Vahanvati, the CJI holds information that goes beyond the assets held by other judges. Some of this information may be confidential and hence can’t be disclosed.
When DNA asked him whether the Supreme Court would now have to challenge the Delhi high court verdict, he said the judgment “must be read carefully”. A challenge could be made before a larger bench of the high court or before the apex court, Vahanvati adds.
Would it be legally permissible for a petitioner (in this case, the Supreme Court) to hear his own appeal? Says Vahanvati: “ministrative decision taken by the CJI to move the high court. But hearing the prospective appeal by the court is a judicial exercise that’s adjudicated on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case’’.
“There are many instances when the court is called upon to adjudicate on its administrative decisions. There’s nothing wrong in that’’, he adds. However, former CJIs Verma and Khare felt that the Supreme Court should accept the judgment and avoid challenging it, particularly when it has decided to disclose the assets of judges on its website. “It’s a bold and judicious judgment,” says Verma.
According to him, the filing of a writ petition by the Supreme Court’s information officer was a “ridiculous decision” and challenging the Delhi high court ruling before the apex court would be a “worse” step.
Khare agreed. “I’ll be disappointed if the judgment is challenged by the Supreme Court. In fact, there was no other option before the high court than declaring that judges are under the RTI domain,’’ feels Khare.
Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, the activist lawyer who challenged the Supreme Court’s earlier refusal to be covered under the RTI, was ecstatic. “I am happy. It is a good judgment.” Personal information regarding judges and their relatives shouldn’t be exempted from the ambit of RTI. “Such information is warranted and not unwanted’’, he said. It was on Aggarwal’s petition that the CIC ruled that the office of CJI is a public authority.
