dear members
in my understanding of the RTI act, all public officials including judges come under the purview of the act.
before becoming a judge, he would have submitted all his personal and professional practice details to the appointing authority.
in a recent decision, rakesh kumar gupta vs CIT, new delhi, the CIC has observed that such personal details when given to a public authority have to be disclosed and there is no exemption as per section 8 (1) (J) OF the rti Act.
a judge conducted a hearing in the open court and mentioned certain facts about his previous engagements as a lawyer in the open court, with regard to his relationship with a party to the proceeding . He in fact told the open court of his inclination to withdraw from the proceeding but continued thereafter. but his finding from the proceeding did not mention anything about these relevant facts. we are of the opinion that his report is vitiated by bias.
but the concerned judge has not replied to an RTI petition sent through high court. the second petition to high court has been rejected citing 8 (1) (j) of the act. but the other side in the proceeding has admitted one of the relevant facts in an affidavit before supreme court. the concerned judge in fact threatened to take contempt of court action for sending him an RTI petition.
we have moved an appeal before CIC. we say that his previous conduct as advocate had a bearing on his public conduct of the proceeding and that his demeanour shows that he has something to hide. and the higher officials are shielding him.
what is the correct legal view in this? pl advice.
thanks
yours
v.lakshminarayanan palani
