High Court admits appeal in judges’ assets declaration case

he Delhi High Court on Wednesday admitted an appeal filed by the Supreme Court Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) against a single judge’s order holding that information on assets declared by Supreme Court judges in the possession of the Chief Justice of India would come within the ambit of the Right to Information Act. A Bench of Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Murlidhar admitted the appeal after hearing Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati and counsel Atul Nanda for the appellant and counsel Prashant Bhushan for respondent Subash Chandra Agrawal. Matter for larger Bench Considering the important questions involved in the appeal, the Bench posted the matter before a larger Bench without passing any interim order, and directed the matter be listed for November 12. The AG submitted that the May 1997 resolution, on the basis of which judges declared their assets, was voluntary and not binding. Mr. Bhushan, appearing for the RTI applicant, said such appeals would bring disrepute to the system. ‘Not a public authority’ The CPIO maintained that the “CJI is not a Public Authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, and therefore, is not required to designate a CPIO for it or to supply the information held or maintained by it.” The appeal is directed against the September 2 judgment directing the CPIO to release within four weeks the information sought by Mr. Agrawal about the declaration of assets (not the contents of the declarations, as they were not sought) on the ground that the office of CJI was a public authority. “There is a plethora of information which is available with the judiciary which cannot be made available in the public domain though, strictly speaking, it would be in the possession of the public authority,” the appeal said. “An illustrative example is of medical records of a judge. Medical records can be contended to be held under Section 2(j) and therefore available for access under the Act. This can have disastrous consequences.” Furthermore, an applicant under the Act could ask for medical records saying the treatment was exaggerated or that the payment made was in excess, and this would expose the judge to harassment. “Vital aspect ignored” “If the reasoning of the single judge is taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the application of the Act could also be made to notes and draft judgments of the judges. This vital aspect of the matter was specifically argued by the appellant. However, the single judge has not at all considered this basic submission in the judgment.” The appeal said: “The single judge failed to appreciate that the declaration of assets, if any, given by a judge of the Supreme Court is purely voluntary and is not required to be given under any legal provision and there is no sanction for non-furnishing of such information.”

"Loved reading this piece by Jithendra.H.J?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group