The Supreme Court on Thursday sparked off a debate by observing that there is no need to keep the Chief Justice of India (CJI) outside the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) as the constitutional office does not indulge in “secretive business”.
The comment came while the SC was examining an order passed by the Panaji Bench of the Bombay HC allowing a plea under RTI seeking the Governor’s report recommending President’s Rule in Goa between July and August 2007.
Against this decision, the Centre had filed an appeal and even obtained a stay.
Not happy with the appeal of the Centre, the Bench of Justices, Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, said, “What is it that a constitutional authority has to hideIJ We do not understand why the office of Governor or Chief Justice of India should not be amenable under RTIIJ”
Interestingly, the RTI application seeking Governor’s report was filed by the then Goa Assembly leader of Opposition and BJP leader Manohar Parrikar, who is now the Chief Minister of the State. With the BJP government at the Centre too, the Supreme Court entertained an application filed by one Paras Nath Singh, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, to keep alive the question whether information available with constitutional authorities should be made available under RTI.
The Bench felt convinced and asked the Centre, represented by Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, “What does the office of CJI have to hideIJ He does not indulge in any secretive business. It has to be sheer objectivity on which this case must be decided.”
Kumar informed the court that in the past the SC had taken a view in another matter where a contrary view was taken. It related to appointment of judges. He referred to the order of December 8, 2011, passed by the SC in this regard and the said petition was still pending hearing before the apex court. The Centre demanded the present petition to be heard along with the pending case.
However, the Bench declined pointing out that the power to club two cases rested with the CJI and directed the Centre to approach him with the same request. The Bench directed the petition for listing in the third week of August.
Former CJI KG Balakrishnan when confronted with a RTI application on information of judges’ assets had refused to part with the same claiming that he held it in “fiduciary” capacity. He had further claimed that office of CJI is not a “public authority” under RTI. An appeal against this decision succeeded before the Delhi High Court and even the SC upheld the HC decision seeking disclosure.