Will information on judges appointments and assets fall under the RTI Act? Constitution Bench to decide

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will decide whether information pertaining to the appointment and transfer of judges, and details of their assets falls under the ambit of the Right to Information Act..A 3-judge Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C Pant and AM Khanwilkar, today referred to a Constitution Bench, appeals filed by Central Public information Officer (CPIO), of Supreme Court against decisions of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Delhi High Court. .The case has its genesis in RTI applications filed by activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal. In one RTI request, Agarwal had sought information with respect to the appointment of Justices HL Dattu, AK Ganguly and RM Lodha. The appointments of these three judges were allegedly objected to by the Prime Minister’s Office since they were appointed superseding three other judges senior to them..The CPIO of Supreme Court and the Appellate Authority had declined his request but the CIC had ruled in favour of Agarwal. It had directed the CPIO of Supreme Court to furnish details of the correspondence between Constitutional authorities relating to the appointment of the three judges..The CPIO of Supreme Court had then appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court..On November 26, 2010, a Division Bench of Justices B Sudershan Reddy and SS Nijjar framed three questions after opining that the matter requires to be considered by a larger Bench..The three questions were:.Whether the concept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought? Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of the judiciary?Whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision?Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information Act?.The Division Bench also noted in its order that the above questions “involve the interpretation of the Constitution and raise great and fundamental issues”..Likewise, Agarwal had also filed an RTI request seeking details of assets of judges. The same was declined by CPIO but allowed by the CIC and the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court had appealed against that too though a Full Court meeting of the court had, in the meanwhile, decided to publish the assets and liabilities of judges on its website..All the High Courts in the country have also been arraigned as parties in the matter..Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for Agarwal today, brought to the notice of the Court that an impression that the Supreme Court shies away from transparency is gaining ground..Justice Ranjan Gogoi quickly retorted, “No one is trying to hide anything, and there’s no problem in declaring..” He, however, added that there is a procedure which needs be followed..Taking note of Bhushan’s anxiety that the reference may result in the matter being dragged unnecessarily, the Bench asked him to make a mention for expeditious disposal before the Bench itself..Speaking to Bar & Bench, petitioner Subhash Chandra Agarwal said,.“The case was referred to a larger bench in 2010. It has finally been referred to a Constitution Bench today. Now in the interest of transparency, Supreme Court should decide the matter expeditiously.”.Additional Solicitor General PS Narasimha appeared for the petitioners.