SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 1
Downloaden Sie, um offline zu lesen
TIMES OF INDIA
7 Jan 2009, 0255 hrs IST, Manoj Mitta, TNN


CJI not exempt from RTI purview, CIC tells SC
NEW DELHI: In a boost to judicial accountability, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on
Tuesday rejected the Supreme Court’s claim that the

Chief Justice of India was beyond the purview of RTI. Accordingly, CIC directed SC to make
public the information available with CJI as to whether its judges had been, in terms of a 1997
resolution, regularly filing declarations of their assets.

The decision taken by a three-member bench of CIC headed by Wajahat Habibullah contradicts
CJI KG Balakrishnan’s public statement that being a Constitution office holder, he was exempt
from RTI. This is also contrary to the file notings made by Justice Balakrishnan, reported first in
TOI, approving SC’s evasive reply in November 2007 that the information relating to declaration
of assets by judges was “not held by or under the control of” its registry and therefore could not
be furnished by its information officer under RTI.

Upholding an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, CIC rebuffed SC’s attempt
to withhold information on the ground that the registry, which came under RTI, was distinct from
the CJI’s office, which was the custodian of the declarations of assets made by SC judges.

Ruling that the institution and its head could not be two distinct public authorities, CIC said that
the information available with the CJI must be “deemed” to be available with Supreme Court.

“If any information is available with one section of the department, it shall be deemed to
available with the public authority as one single entity.”

Since the appellant did not seek copies of the declarations, CIC disallowed SC’s alternative
contention that the information could not be disclosed as it attracted exemption under Section
8(1)(e) as the declarations had been received by CJI in a “fiduciary relationship” or Section
8(1)(j) as it was “personal information” which had “no relationship to any public activity or
interest.” The bench consisting of Wajahat Habibullah, A N Tiwari and M M Ansari directed
SC’s information officer to disclose within 10 days to Agrawal whether its judges had been filing
declarations of assets in compliance with the resolution adopted by the entire bench of the apex
court in 1997.

Though the judiciary had informally maintained that judges had been filing declarations of assets,
it was reluctant to say anything on the subject under RTI lest it opened a floodgate of queries
related to judicial probity. The tacit, if self-serving, suggestion was RTI could not be allowed to
compromise judicial independence.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/CJI_not_exempt_from_RTI_purview_CIC_tells_SC/arti
cleshow/3944793.cms

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi

rtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreachery
rtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreacheryrtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreachery
rtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreacheryRaviforjustice Raviforjustice
 
Right to Information Act 2005
Right to Information Act 2005Right to Information Act 2005
Right to Information Act 2005KalpanaMishra16
 
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)Lalith Babu
 
Special leave petition
Special leave petitionSpecial leave petition
Special leave petitioncjarindia
 
High court order 07.01.2016
High court order 07.01.2016High court order 07.01.2016
High court order 07.01.2016cjarindia
 
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptx
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptxRIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptx
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptxMukeshPradhan41
 
Order dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New Delhi
Order dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New DelhiOrder dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New Delhi
Order dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New DelhiOm Prakash Poddar
 

Ähnlich wie Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi (10)

Right to information and media law
Right to information and media lawRight to information and media law
Right to information and media law
 
rtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreachery
rtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreacheryrtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreachery
rtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt32thetreachery
 
Right to Information Act 2005
Right to Information Act 2005Right to Information Act 2005
Right to Information Act 2005
 
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
Slp 27734 -12(supreme court judgment)
 
Rti delhi hc judgment
Rti delhi hc judgmentRti delhi hc judgment
Rti delhi hc judgment
 
Scjudgment
ScjudgmentScjudgment
Scjudgment
 
Special leave petition
Special leave petitionSpecial leave petition
Special leave petition
 
High court order 07.01.2016
High court order 07.01.2016High court order 07.01.2016
High court order 07.01.2016
 
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptx
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptxRIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptx
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.pptx
 
Order dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New Delhi
Order dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New DelhiOrder dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New Delhi
Order dated 08.09.2017 announced by CIC New Delhi
 

Mehr von JudicialReform13

Mehr von JudicialReform13 (20)

Contempt power some_quest
Contempt power some_questContempt power some_quest
Contempt power some_quest
 
Contempt of justice_outlook
Contempt of justice_outlookContempt of justice_outlook
Contempt of justice_outlook
 
Contempt article pb
Contempt article pbContempt article pb
Contempt article pb
 
Completely collaspsed system
Completely collaspsed systemCompletely collaspsed system
Completely collaspsed system
 
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhallaComplaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
Complaint to y.k.sab re jagdish bhalla
 
Coja resolution 22.9.01
Coja resolution 22.9.01Coja resolution 22.9.01
Coja resolution 22.9.01
 
Coja resolution 13.12.02
Coja resolution 13.12.02Coja resolution 13.12.02
Coja resolution 13.12.02
 
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rsCnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
Cnn govt forced_to_withdraw_judges_assets_bill_in_rs
 
Cjirefuted
CjirefutedCjirefuted
Cjirefuted
 
Cji silence
Cji silenceCji silence
Cji silence
 
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assests
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assestsCji rules out_declaration_of_assests
Cji rules out_declaration_of_assests
 
Cji recomends impreach_ie
Cji recomends impreach_ieCji recomends impreach_ie
Cji recomends impreach_ie
 
Cjar letter to_vice_president
Cjar letter to_vice_presidentCjar letter to_vice_president
Cjar letter to_vice_president
 
Cjar complaint against_rebello
Cjar complaint against_rebelloCjar complaint against_rebello
Cjar complaint against_rebello
 
Cjar brochure
Cjar brochureCjar brochure
Cjar brochure
 
Cja comments on bill
Cja   comments on billCja   comments on bill
Cja comments on bill
 
Cic decision hc_rtifees_2
Cic decision hc_rtifees_2Cic decision hc_rtifees_2
Cic decision hc_rtifees_2
 
Cic decision hc_rtifees_
Cic decision hc_rtifees_Cic decision hc_rtifees_
Cic decision hc_rtifees_
 
Cic judgement appointments_1
Cic judgement appointments_1Cic judgement appointments_1
Cic judgement appointments_1
 
Cic judgement appointments
Cic judgement appointmentsCic judgement appointments
Cic judgement appointments
 

Cji not exempt_from_rti_purview_toi

  • 1. TIMES OF INDIA 7 Jan 2009, 0255 hrs IST, Manoj Mitta, TNN CJI not exempt from RTI purview, CIC tells SC NEW DELHI: In a boost to judicial accountability, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Tuesday rejected the Supreme Court’s claim that the Chief Justice of India was beyond the purview of RTI. Accordingly, CIC directed SC to make public the information available with CJI as to whether its judges had been, in terms of a 1997 resolution, regularly filing declarations of their assets. The decision taken by a three-member bench of CIC headed by Wajahat Habibullah contradicts CJI KG Balakrishnan’s public statement that being a Constitution office holder, he was exempt from RTI. This is also contrary to the file notings made by Justice Balakrishnan, reported first in TOI, approving SC’s evasive reply in November 2007 that the information relating to declaration of assets by judges was “not held by or under the control of” its registry and therefore could not be furnished by its information officer under RTI. Upholding an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, CIC rebuffed SC’s attempt to withhold information on the ground that the registry, which came under RTI, was distinct from the CJI’s office, which was the custodian of the declarations of assets made by SC judges. Ruling that the institution and its head could not be two distinct public authorities, CIC said that the information available with the CJI must be “deemed” to be available with Supreme Court. “If any information is available with one section of the department, it shall be deemed to available with the public authority as one single entity.” Since the appellant did not seek copies of the declarations, CIC disallowed SC’s alternative contention that the information could not be disclosed as it attracted exemption under Section 8(1)(e) as the declarations had been received by CJI in a “fiduciary relationship” or Section 8(1)(j) as it was “personal information” which had “no relationship to any public activity or interest.” The bench consisting of Wajahat Habibullah, A N Tiwari and M M Ansari directed SC’s information officer to disclose within 10 days to Agrawal whether its judges had been filing declarations of assets in compliance with the resolution adopted by the entire bench of the apex court in 1997. Though the judiciary had informally maintained that judges had been filing declarations of assets, it was reluctant to say anything on the subject under RTI lest it opened a floodgate of queries related to judicial probity. The tacit, if self-serving, suggestion was RTI could not be allowed to compromise judicial independence. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/CJI_not_exempt_from_RTI_purview_CIC_tells_SC/arti cleshow/3944793.cms