CJI under RTI: A welcome ruling

The Supreme Court has done well to finally rule that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) comes under the Right to Information Act, after resisting public scrutiny for long. A Constitution bench, led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi in his last week in office, ruled that the office is a public authority under the RTI Act. The decision will make it a more democratic institution, more accessible and closer to the people. Though the last few days of Justice Gogoi in office saw some controversial decisions, the judgement on his own office will be considered a landmark one. The court’s resistance to the idea of public scrutiny can be seen from the fact that the case has languished for nine years, after the Delhi High Court ruled in 2010 that the CJI’s office came under the RTI. In an unusual procedure, the court approached itself as a litigant against the high court’s ruling, but in the end, it has given a positive ruling.

The ruling will help to bring transparency and accountability to the working of the country’s highest judicial office. This will increase its credibility as a high constitutional office and appeal as a human agency in a democratic system. It has said that “disclosure is a facet of public interest,’’ which should be the touchstone for the working of all offices and institutions. The ruling may pave the way for disclosure of information like the income and assets of judges, their transfers and postings and other matters of public interest. The sharing of such information will only strengthen the standing of the judiciary and increase people’s trust in it. The RTI Act is under pressure from the government now, and so the court’s recognition of its power and agency is especially welcome.

The five-judge bench has unanimously held that the right to know under the RTI Act is not absolute and it has to be balanced against the right to privacy of the judges. This is true but is equally true for all public offices. The challenge is in separating public, relevant and important information from private, irrelevant and unimportant matters, and this will call for high standards of judgement. One serious concern of the court in such situations is its independence, but as Justice DY Chandrachud said in his judgement, judicial independence is not secured by secrecy. Justice NV Ramana, another judge on the bench, has however cautioned against the RTI being used as a tool of surveillance against the court. It should be noted that what the court has allowed is a conditional and limited access to itself, but that still marks an advancement of a key right of the people.