RTI should not infringe on Judiciarys independence says AG

"Public right to know is fine, but on the same hand, it should also be seen that such rights are not infringing on the independence of the judiciary," argued Attorney General Goolam E. Vahanvati [pictured], appearing on behalf of the Supreme Court, before a three judge Bench of the Delhi High Court.

The matter is on appeal from a High Court of Delhi judgment in September, which had held that the CJI was a public authority and his office came within the purview of the RTI Act.

"Public right to know is fine, but on the same hand, it should also be seen that such rights are not infringing on the independence of the judiciary," argued Attorney General Goolam E. Vahanvati [pictured], appearing on behalf of the Supreme Court, before a three judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Ajit Prakash Shah, Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Vikramjit Sen.

The Supreme Court on Thursday contended before the Delhi High Court that the information within the control of a public authority should be supplied under the Right To Information Act (RTI), but keeping in mind the independence of judiciary.

The High Court of Delhi had, in its judgment in September, held that the CJI was a public authority and his office came within the purview of the transparency law.

Vahanvati said: "The resolution of 1997 adopted by the Supreme Court judges is non-constitutional and non-binding on the judges." He also argued that considering the judges have voluntarily disclosed their assets, the office of the CJI would not be considered as a public authority under the Act. However, he was quick to clarify that the disclosure was not made under the RTI Act.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, arguing on behalf of S.C. Aggarwal, on whose application the Central Information Commission (CIC) had given its verdict that the CJI's office is a public authority, said, "There are more specific rules regarding the evaluation of assets and should be calculated from the time the assets have been acquired and not on the present day prices."

The Bench today directed the parties to file their written arguments and reserved the matter for judgment.