New Delhi, September 2
Holding that the Right to Information (RTI) Act “is premised on disclosure being the norm and refusal an exception”, the Delhi High Court today delivered a landmark judgment, ruling that the Act mandated providing details of Supreme Court judges’ assets to RTI applicants.
The Chief Justice of India “is a public authority” covered under the provisions of the RTI Act and he “holds information pertaining to asset declarations in his capacity as the Chief Justice” (not personal capacity), Justice S Ravindra Bhat observed in a 72-page verdict.
Handing out the ruling, the HC directed the Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to “release (within four weeks) the information” sought by an RTI applicant about asset declarations made by judges of the apex court.
The HC, however, made it clear that there was no need to disclose “contents of the declarations as that was not sought for”. The demand for bringing details of the HC and SC judges in the public domain has recently sparked a nationwide debate.
Apparently, yielding to the mounting public opinion supporting the demand, the SC expressed its willingness to make such information public, but is reportedly against entertaining queries over any increase or decrease in the wealth of judges.
The HC rejected various contentions of the apex court CPIO, who had challenged the January 6, 2009, order of the Central Information Commission that directed the officer to provide details sought by the RTI applicant, advocate Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
“This court cannot be unmindful of the fact that several categories of public servants, including Central and state government servants, as well as public sector employees and officers of statutory corporations are required by service rules to declare their assets, periodically,” the high court reasoned.
Disposing of the CPIO’s appeal, the HC dealt with six points. Following are the excerpts from the summary of the verdict: The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and he holds information pertaining to asset
declarations in his official capacity as the Chief Justice; that office is a public authority under the Act and is covered by its provisions. It is held that details relating to declaration of assets by the SC judges are information within the meaning of the expression, under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The information pertaining to declarations given to the CJI and the contents of such declaration are information and subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
The SC CPIO’s argument, made through the then Solicitor-General, GE Vahanvati (since elevated as Attorney General), about the CJI holding asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity (which would be breached if it is directed to be disclosed in the manner sought by the applicant) is unsubstantial. The CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship.
