RTI, Delhi High Court and Supreme Court

With the Delhi high court ruling that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, a long-drawn-out debate will now hopefully find amicable resolution. The ruling of the three-judge bench was on an appeal by the Supreme Court registry against the high court's single-judge verdict in September. The challenge to the September verdict was that such liberal interpretation of the RTI law could hamper the judges' independence. Basically dismissing the appeal, the three-judge bench of Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justices Vikramjeet Sen and S. Muralidhar said: "The judicial independence is not a privilege to a judge but a responsibility." The full extent of the information impacted by this ruling will be clarified over time; nonetheless, it holds out the possibility of closure on the judges' assets issue in a way that retrieves for the higher judiciary the credibility and moral authority it has traditionally enjoyed.

 

The demand to make public details about the judges' assets had over the past few months visibly divided the judiciary, with many high courts seen to be pushing the apex court to greater transparency. Moreover, by being perceived to be holding out against the kind of transparency and accountability that it was helping impose in practically all other areas of public life, the senior judiciary was seen to be in danger of undermining its position. Indeed, in the months since the issue first came up, a greater number of judges, including those of the Supreme Court, have made public details of their material wealth. What the Delhi high court's verdict, were it to remain unchallenged, does is make the declaration a formality, and not just a voluntary gesture. As J.S. Verma, former chief justice of India on whose watch the full court's resolution on declaring assets was accomplished in 1997, has argued in these pages, there is a legitimate concern about harassment of judges by "unscrupulous persons and disgruntled litigants". But he went on to say that this must be accepted as an occupational hazard, and some safeguards can be determined. The larger issue, he said, is this: "In the current environment of waning credibility of the higher judiciary, with specific allegations of corruption based on prima facie authentic materials even against a few of the highest, it is in the judiciary's own interest to be fully transparent and above suspicion."

 

Our higher judiciary is considered the world's most powerful. It has played a pivotal role in upholding constitutional propriety, and filling in the spaces vacated by the executive and the legislature. The prospect of closing a rocky chapter in its history, and that too through its own, can only be good for the judiciary.