Not exempt from public scrutiny

January 12, 2010 11:17 pm | Updated November 17, 2021 07:07 am IST

The decision of the full bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah, Justice Vikramjit Sen, and Justice S. Muralidhar confirming that every citizen has the right to obtain information provided by the Supreme Court judges and held by the Chief Justice of India is a welcome blow for transparency and accountability in the higher judiciary. This was the third in the series of legal challenges to such disclosure mounted by the Supreme Court — it had earlier contested the issue before the Central Information Commission and a single judge of the Delhi High Court. The case related to the information on the disclosure of assets of judges to the CJI as required under the 1997 resolution passed by all the judges of the Supreme Court. What the RTI applicant sought was not even the contents of the declaration but merely if the judges had furnished the information required under the 1997 resolution. The reluctance to provide even this information was indeed inexplicable, particularly in the context of the court laying so much store by transparency and accountability for public officials and mandating the disclosure of assets of candidates contesting elections, for instance. Before the Delhi High Court bench, the Supreme Court raised the technical contention that the 1997 resolution had only moral force and declaration of assets was not information held under any law to which the RTI Act would apply. It also argued that the CJI held such information in a fiduciary capacity and in confidence and could not be made to disclose it.

The Delhi High Court rejected both these arguments, pointing out that the 1997 resolution passed unanimously by the judges themselves was considered binding. It also held that the CJI was not acting in a fiduciary capacity but was holding the information by reason of his office, and in any case the content of the declarations was not sought. It is significant that the court also sought to place the right to information on a higher constitutional footing of the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and not just on the RTI Act. The decision marks the close of one chapter that saw the unusual spectacle of the Supreme Court canvassing its case before the High Court and losing — an outcome that should strengthen public perception of the independence of the high court. Stranger still would be the Supreme Court taking up its own case on appeal from the Delhi High Court decision. Bowing to the public opinion, the Supreme Court made public the declaration of assets of all its judges on its website and the issue raised in the case has been addressed substantially. The gains from such transparency would be squandered if the court were now to use its authority to insulate itself from public scrutiny.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.