CJI UNDER RTI ACT OR NOT?

CJI UNDER RTI ACT OR NOT? It refers to media-reports indicating that Supreme Court registry may approach Delhi High Court against recent full-bench verdict by Central information Commission (CIC) holding Chief Justice of India (CJI) under purview of ‘Right-To-Information (RTI) Act’. If Supreme Court registry approaches judicial side against CIC verdict on behalf of the CJI, that itself will be confessional to hold CIC verdict correct for CJI as part of Supreme Court. File-notings furnished by Supreme Court in the said matter reveal that reply of Central public Information Officer (CPIO) at Supreme Court was got endorsed by CJI. It is possible only when CJI is part of Supreme Court for being under purview of RTI Act. How can the resolution adopted by full court-meeting of all the 22 judges of Supreme Court can be informal or voluntary also because CPIO at Supreme Court himself provided a copy of the said resolution to the petitioner in the same petition? How can it be justified to decline simple information just about implementation of the resolution of which a copy was supplied by Supreme Court itself? Petitioner did not seek details of wealth and assets of judges in his petition. Even CPIO at Supreme Court responded to petitioner’s earlier RTI petition seeking information on a complaint addressed to the then CJI against a judge of Delhi High Court. Interpretation of an Act passed by the Parliament should not change with change of guards at Supreme Court. Several former CJIs have also expressed view in accordance to CIC verdict. Post of CJI represents an institution rather than an individual. Speaker of Lok Sabha having passed RTI Act and the Chairperson of concerned Parliamentary panel have also views in accordance with RTI Act. If Supreme Court does not agree with RTI Act, it should approach the Parliament rather than courts. Eminent jurist Shri Fali S Nariman in a panel-discussion on NDTV has also expressed that courts can only interpret an Act passed by the Parliament rather than decide according to views of concerned ones. RTI Act is very clear to include all constitutional appointments under purview of RTI Act. How CJI, mentioned as Competent Authority, escape from being in purview of RTI Act when other concerned public-authorities respond to communications addressed to competent authorities like President of India and Chief Information Commissioner? Any thin line, if drawn between department-heads and others working under them, will provide an easy escape-route for ministers, secretaries and heads of all public-authorities for their being out of purview of RTI Act. Supreme Court itself is uncomfortable with RTI Act right from the beginning as is clear by amendments proposed by it in RTI Act where it has proposed that Registrar General of Supreme Court and not CIC may be the second Appellate Authority for Supreme Court in RTI Act! Suggested amendment to RTI Act also seeks that nominees of CJI may be exempted from RTI Act without clarifying who will be nominees of CJI. If CJI is not under purview of RTI Act despite being head of the institution, why Supreme Court demands dominating role for him through amendment in RTI Act? (see attachment) SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL (Guinness Record Holder for most letters in newspapers) 1775 Kucha Lattushah Dariba DELHI 110006 (India) Mobile 9810033711 Fax 23254036 E-mail subhashmadhu@sify.com Web www.subhashmadhu.com

"Loved reading this piece by SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL?
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