Chief Justice of India isn't boss of judges: HC

New Delhi: A three-judge bench of the Delhi high court has thrown out the Supreme Court’s attempt to wriggle out of the ambit of the Right to Information Act (RTI); the apex court is hence liable to disclose judges’ assets. Among other things, the bench, headed by chief justice AP Shah, held that the chief justice of India (CJI) is not the boss of other judges, and that accountability in the constitutional courts cannot be any less than that of the subordinate courts, where assets have to be disclosed.

In a major setback to the CJI, who claims that information about assets given by the judges is confidential as he holds it in a ‘fiduciary’ capacity, the bench said: “The CJI cannot be a fiduciary vis-a-vis judges of the Supreme Court’’.

“The SC judges hold independent office, and there is no hierarchy in their judicial functions which places them at a different plane than the CJI,” ruled a bench, which included justices Vikramajit Sen and S Murlidhar.

“The (assets) declarations are not furnished to the CJI in a private relationship or as a trust but in discharge of the constitutional obligation to maintain higher standards and probity of judicial life and are in the larger public interest,” the high court added.

Observing that democracy expects openness and transparency, the high court hailed the RTI Act as “the most significant event in the life of Indian democracy”. It said:“Democracy expects openness and openness is a concomitant of free society. Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” the court said.

The 122-paragraph, 88-page well-written judgment will be challenged by the Supreme Court registrar-general who had appealed against justice S Ravinder Bhat’s earlier judgment saying the CJI and judges of the apex court are covered by the RTI Act.

Soon thereafter, judges of the Supreme Court and four high courts disclosed their assets on the respective court’s website. CJ Shah said Delhi high court judges will also disclose their assets in the same manner within a week.

An informed source said: “The high court judgment will be challenged before the Supreme Court that’s already seized of its own appeal against a Central Information Commission (CIC) order asking the court to give information relating to Madras high court justice R Reghupathy’s communication to the CJI that a union minister had approached him in a criminal case. Most probably, the fresh appeal will be tagged with the earlier appeal.’’

In December last, the Supreme court had stayed the CIC’s direction on justice Reghupathy’s letter to the CJI.

The applicant, SC Aggrawal, who has invoked the RTI in bQoth the matters - the assets case and the Reghupathy affair - said “it’s an irony that the Supreme Court is moving an appeal before it for quashing the orders passed under the RTI. What can I do?’’

In its unanimous judgment, the high court said judges of the superior courts should make public their assets as they are not “less accountable” than the subordinate judiciary who are bound by service rules to declare assets.

Subordinate court judges have for long been required to disclose their assets year after year. It can’t be argued that they are less accountable or independent than the judges of the Supreme Court or high courts.

“If declaration of assets by a subordinate judicial officer is seen as essential to enforce accountability at that level, then the need for such declaration by judges of the constitutional courts is even greater,’’ the high court asserts.

“It can hardly be imagined that resolutions which have been
unanimously adopted at a conference of judges would not be binding on the judges and its efficacy can be questioned’’, the court said while dismissing the Supreme Court registrar’s appeal.

Attorney-general Goolam E Vahanvati, who appeared for the Supreme Court’s registrar-general, had contended that even the resolutions would not have a binding effect of law.

The Delhi high court bench rejected his plea saying “such a contention cannot be accepted if the proper functioning of the judiciary as an institution has to be ensured’’.

“The consequence of accepting such an argument would mean that individual judges will simply declare that they are not bound by any of the resolutions of the court and they are free to act according to their whims’’, the high court said, and warned that if the judiciary failed or neglected to assume responsibility for ensuring that its members maintained high standards of judicial conduct expected of them, public opinion and political expediency may lead the other two branches of the government to intervene.

“When that happens, the principle of judicial independence upon which the judiciary is founded and by which it is sustained is likely to be undermined to some degree, perhaps seriously’’, a concerned high court judge said.