The Supreme Court declared offices of the Chief Justice of India and high court chief justices as “public authority”, making them liable to provide information to queries under the Right to Information Act, but weaved in caveats of “judicial independence, privacy and genuine public interest” to protect judges and judiciary against witch-hunting.
A bench of former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna said the SC, which is a “public authority”, would necessarily include the office of CJI and judges in view of Article 124 of the Constitution. In the process, it upheld a 2010 judgment of the Delhi HC that directed the CPIO of the SC to furnish information on SC judges who have declared their assets. Although the SC stayed the HC order, judges have been voluntarily declaring assets.
Writing the order, an attempt to balance competing considerations of accountability and transparency with independence of the judiciary and privacy of its members, Justice Khanna explained, “The office of the CJI, or for that matter judges, is not separate from the Supreme Court, and is part of the Supreme Court as a body, authority and institution. The CJI and the Supreme Court are not two distinct and separate ‘public authorities’, albeit the latter is a ‘public authority’ and the Chief Justice and judges together form and constitute the ‘public authority’, that is the Supreme Court of India.”
RTI queries will have to clear public interest test
After ruling in principle that offices of the CJI and CJs of the HCs are public authority amenable to the RTI Act, the SC said RTI queries seeking information will have to clear the cardinal public interest test. “When public interest demands disclosure of information, judicial independence has to be kept in mind while deciding the question of exercise of discretion,” the bench said.
The five-judge bench led by former CJI Gogoi struck a note of caution on whether information about selection of persons for appointment as judges of HCs or SC would be made public under the RTI Act. The SC said, “Distinction must be drawn between the final opinion or resolutions passed by the collegium with regard to appointment/elevation and transfer of judges with observations and indicative reasons and the inputs/data or details which the collegium has examined.”
It emphasised that “transparency and openness in judicial appointments juxtaposed with confidentiality of deliberations (within the collegium) remain one of the most delicate and complex issues”. It recounted how the SC collegium was recently forced to truncate posting of details on its resolutions for appointment and transfer of judges as it harmed the reputation, dignity and privacy of those who were not selected as judges.
