The Supreme Court on Monday filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court challenging the single judge order of September 2 declaring the Chief Justice of India (CJI) a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the declarations in his possession pertaining to the assets of the Supreme Court Judges as information in the public domain.
The appeal filed by the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court submitted that the Single Judge Bench had failed to appreciate that the information regarding declaration of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court sought by RTI activist Subash Chandra Agarwal was not covered under the Act and Mr. Agarwal had no right to seek such information under Section 2 (j) of the Act.
It said that the single judge had failed to appreciate that voluntary declaration of assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court to the CJI could not be said to be material which was held by or was under the control of any public authority.
The single judge’s judgment had come on a petition by the CPIO challenging an order of the Central Information Commission directing the Supreme Court to provide information sought by Mr. Agarwal about the declaration of assets (not the contents of the declaration) made by the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of the High Court had directed the CPIO to provide the information sought by Mr. Agarwal within four weeks of the pronouncement of the judgment.
“The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and he holds the information pertaining to assets declarations in his capacity as Chief Justice; that office is a public authority under the Act and is covered by its provisions,” Justice Bhat had held.
The appeal further stated that the single judge had failed to appreciate that there was a plethora of information which was available with the judiciary which could not be made available in the public domain, though strictly speaking it would be in the possession of the public authority.
“If the reasoning of the single judge was taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the application of the Act could also be made to notes and draft judgments of the Judges,’’ the appeal apprehended.
Seeking setting aside of the judgment, the CPIO sought an interim stay on it.
