In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that the office of Chief Justice of India falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act and the details pertaining to judges' assets could be revealed under the law.
"The CJI is a public authority under the Right to Information Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to assets declaration in his capacity as Chief Justice. That office is a public authority under the Act and is covered by its provisions," Justice S Ravindra Bhatt said.
"Declaration of assets by Supreme Court judges is an information under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The information pertaining to declaration given to the CJI and the contents of such declaration are information and subject to the provisions of the RTI Act," the court said.
The court upheld the Central Information Commission's order directing the Supreme Court to reveal information whether judges are declaring their assets to the Chief Justice of India or not.
On the issue whether disclosure of information was "unworkable" due to lack of clarity about the details as well as lack of security, the court said CJI can evolve uniform standards and devise relevant formats and periodicity of declaration.
"These are not insurmountable obstacles. The CJI, if he deems it appropriate, may in consultation with the Supreme Court judges evolve uniform standards, devising the nature of information, relevant formats and, if required, the periodicity of declaration to be made," the court said in its 72-page order.
Emphasising the importance of the law, Justice Bhatt said the Act is the most important piece of legislation drafted after Independence and it should be followed in its true spirit.
"The Act arguably is one of the most important pieces of legislation in the post independence era to effectuate democracy. It may be likened to a powerful beacon, which illuminates unlit corners of state activity, and those of public authorities which impact citizens' daily lives, to which they previously had no access," the court said.
"All power -- judicial power being no exception -- is held accountable in modern Constitution. Holders of power, too, are expected to live by the standards they set, interpret, or enforce, at least to the extent their office demands," Justice Bhatt said.
The court, in its judgment, tried to dispel all the apprehensions regarding the alleged lack of accountability of the judicial system.
"The intervening developments have focused on accountability of judges as this judgment sought to demonstrate that the judge is not unaccountable as is sometimes wrongly understood and is subject to several constraints. The judicial branch lacks either the sword or the purse controlled by the other two branches (executive and legislature)," the court said.
The court said being the "head of the judiciary" or the judicial family, the CIC did not commit any error in concluding that the CJI is a public authority.
It held that the details relating to judges declaring their assets to the CJI, aftera full court bench passed 1997 resolution, are "information" under the RTI Act.
"This court is of the opinion that the volitional nature of the resolutions, should be seen as the higher judiciary's commitment to essential ethical behaviour, and its resolve to abide by it. Therefore, that such need to declare assets is not mandated by Parliamentary law, or any statutory instrument, becomes of secondary importance," the court said.
The Supreme Court had declined to reveal the information sought by RTI activist Subhash C Aggarwal on the ground that there is no law making it mandatory for the judges to declare their assets.
The Supreme Court had approached the High Court challenging the January 6 order of the CIC directing the apex court to reveal information pertaining to judges assets under the RTI Act.
The high court had on January 19 stayed the order of the CIC in which the Commission had held that the office of Chief Justice of India comes within the ambit of the RTI Act and information given to CJI has to be revealed to the RTI applicant.
The apex court, on its part, had contended that its judges were not averse to declaring their assets and Parliament should frame a law for it as there was no legislation, which makes it mandatory for members of the judiciary to make public their assets.
Faced with the pressure from within and outside the system, the judges of the apex court had, however, recently agreed to make their assets public by posting all details on the website of the Supreme Court, which was soon followed by different judges of the high courts.
