CJI says no Delhi High Court differs

In what could potentially be an embarrassing situation for the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled that the Chief Justice of India is a public authority and his office falls within the purview of the RTI Act..Upholding an order of the Chief Information Commissioner, Justice Bhat said, “The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to assets in his capacity as the Chief Justice. That office is a public authority under the Act and is covered by its provisions.”.In what could potentially be an embarrassing situation for the Chief Justice of India, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled that the Chief Justice of India is a public authority and his office falls within the purview of the RTI Act..Clarifying the position, Justice Ravindra Bhat concluded that details of assets of a Judge are “personal information” covered by the privacy safeguards listed under Section 8 of the Act. This means that Judges have the privilege of choosing whether the CJI can make their asset disclosures public or not..Upholding an order of the Chief Information Commissioner, Justice Bhat said, “The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to assets in his capacity as the Chief Justice. That office is a public authority under the Act and is covered by its provisions.” So, while the HC judgement squarely disputes the stand of Justice Balakrishnan that the office of the CJI is not within the purview of the Act, the Judges can opt not to dislose their assets..In response to the Attorney General Ghoolam Vahanvati’s submission that the office of CJI and the Registry of the Supreme Court were independent entities and that the CJI’s office was exempt from the Act, Justice Bhat was of the view that the varied roles of the CJI are directly relatable to his holding the office of CJI and heading the Supreme Court. He added, “There is no clue in the provisions of the RTI Act that the office of CJI is exempt; on the contrary, internal indications in the enactment point to even the President of India being covered by the provisions.”.Holding that it would be “highly anomalous” to say that judges have no obligation to disclose their personal assets, Justice Bhat pointed out that standards of disclosure for the legislators, parliamentarians and administrators were set by a Supreme Court order..Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati, who represented the Supreme Court Information Officer, confirmed that an appeal would be filed before a Division Bench of the High Court. “We have just received the copy of the high court judgment. We are examining it at present. It will take a few days before we can say what to do with it,” Supreme Court Secretary General M.P. Bhadran said..This is a debate that is bound to continue for a while. At the very least, until the Supreme Court is called upon to decide upon whether the office of Chief Justice of India is within the ambit of the Act.