RTI and the Supreme Court: Justice Ravindra Bhat’s Appointment Revives Hope
Ten years ago, Justice Ravindra Bhat, then a judge in the Delhi High Court upheld a decision by Central Information Commission (CIC) that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and therefore judges’ assets should be made public. 
 
The Supreme Court (SC) filed an appeal, but Delhi HC had dismissed it. Last week, Justice Bhat has been appointed as a Supreme Court judge, along with three others.
 
Ironically, his order bringing the SC under RTI has now been undone. The central public information officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court and Secretary General of the Supreme Court have filed a petition against Justice Bhat’s order. 
 
In April 2019, a five judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had reserved Justice Bhat’s order. During the hearing, CJI Gogoi had stated “in the name of transparency, you can’t destroy the institution.”
 
Attorney General Venugopal had argued during the hearing that if the CJI office comes under the RTI Act, it will affect judicial independence and cause ‘damage’.
 
In the backdrop of Justice Bhat’s appointment to the apex court, it is worth recollecting the case and the issues reaised. A simple request for information on whether judges are declaring assets to their respective chief justices turned into a contentious issue of privacy versus public information.
 
On 10th November, 2007, RTI activist Subhashchandra Agrawal had filed a request with the CPIO of the Supreme Court seeking a copy of the resolution dated 7 May 1997 of the SC requiring every judge to decalred assets and; to provide information on whether any such declaration of assets were filed by judges of the Supreme Court to the CJI and whether High Court judges are submitting declaration about their assets to their respective Chief Justices in their States.
 
While the CPIO provided a copy of the 1997 resolution, he denied information relating to judges’ declaration of assets.  He replied that the inforamation is under the control of the Registry of the Supreme Court and, therefore it could not be furnished. 
 
When Mr Agrawal appealed to the first appellate authority (FAA), the latter reprimanded the CPIO and said that he should have transferred the application to the CPIO of the Registry, as per the RTI Act. So, the FAA sent back the application to the CPIO for further perusal.
 
However, the CPIO of registry not only denied information but reprimanded Mr Agrawal in his reply saying, “In the case at hand, you yourself knew that the information sought by you is related to various High Courts in the country and instead of applying to those public authorities you have taken a short circuit procedure by approaching the CPIO, Supreme Court of India remitting the fee of Rs10 payable to one authority and getting it referred to all the public authorities at the expense of one CPIO. In view of this, the relief sought by you cannot be appreciated and is against the spirit of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
 
Mr Agrawal then filed a second appeal at the CIC. During the hearing, the CPIO of the Supreme Court submitted that the 1997 Resolution was an in-house exercise; and declaration regarding assets by judges is only voluntary and that the resolution describes the submissions as “confidential”. Further, he said that those judges who have submitted declarations to the Chief Justice have done so in their personal capacity and not official capacity and so any disclosure of informationwould be violation of the 1997 resolution.
 
The CIC reasoned that the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution of India and is a public authority; the Chief Justice of India is the competent authority, under the RTI Act, so both cannot disclaim being public authorities.
 
The CIC also observed that Mr Agrawal is apparently not seeking a copy of the declarations or the contents therein or even the names of the judges who have filed a declaration of assets, nor is he requesting inspection of such declarations. All he has asked is whether such declaration of assets have been filled by judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts. What he was seeking, said the CIC, cannot be held to attract exemption under Sections 8(1)(e) or 8(1) (j). 
 
The CIC ordered the CPIO to provide the required information. 
 
The CPIO then filed a petition with the Delhi High court against the CIC order. Justice Bhat, in his order on 2 September 2009 ordered that, “CPIO shall release the information sought by the respondent applicant, about the declaration of assets, (and not the contents of the declarations, as that was not sought for) made by judges of the Supreme Court, within four weeks.”
 
Instead of abiding by the order, the CPIO again filed a writ petition against it and this time, the Registrar of the Supreme Court became a co-petitioner and filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The matter came up for hearing in April 2019 with the Supreme Court hearing an issue that involved its own disclosures. The order is reserved.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens to this issue. 
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
 
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    P M Ravindran

    5 months ago

    This is a classic case exposing the perfidy and waywardness of our judiciary. While the courts never tire of telling how transparent they are just because they hold hearings in open court, the fact remains that they have kept their judicial functions out of purview of the RTI Act. In the case dealt with here the information sought wasn't even about this illegally exempted information. It was definitely on the administrative side. And all those who adjudicated on the appeals- from the CIC (a s a full bench!) to the benches of the Delhi HC- had rightly ordered the info to be declared. The CJI, if he gives a different verdict would only be digging another nail into the coffin of judicial credibility.

    Incidentally there seems to be some errors in the report here. The declarations are submitted to the CJI and CJs of the HCs. So in the SC, the CJI, as the deemed CPIO, was the public servant required to provide the information sought. The application was reportedly transferred to the CJI who then illegally (or call it abusing his authority) declared his office as out of purview of the RTI Act.

    Interestingly, the application and controversies were rendered null and void, except technically, when some upright judges came forward to publish their returns voluntarily and most of the rest, if not all, had to follow suit.

    Deepak Narain

    5 months ago

    The conduct of the concerned authorities denying information on one pretext or the other is not praise-worthy and only spoils the image of the top judicial body of the country.

    Rajasthan, Which Pioneered the RTI Movement, Launches Unique Portal for Suo Moto Disclosures
    The trend of central and state public authorities ignoring suo motu disclosures, mandatory under Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, dates back to the day of its implementation on 12 October 2005. 
     
    Over the years, innumerable memorandums from the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) to the public authorities have been ignored. Close on the heels of the 14th anniversary of the RTI Act, we have good news comes from Rajasthan, the state that pioneered the RTI movement. 
     
    Rajasthan has launched the Jan Soochna Portal which will display all information that ought be voluntarily disclosed by public authorities under the RTI Act.
     
    The information will be open to public scrutiny at the click of a mouse and without having to file and RTI application. I will display issues related to 13 departments comprising around 30 government schemes. These include public distribution and ration; farm loans; pensions; beneficiaries of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA); food grain distribution; government-run medical and health insurance schemes; land extract details to give a few examples.
     
     
    Thus, citizen empowerment would be at its strongest. As you go through the website you will find documents pertaining to these issues have already been neatly uploaded. While the home page has an introduction in Hindi and English, information on every public authority is available at a click on their logo.
     
    The home page of the portal http://jansoochna.rajasthan.gov.in/ states: “The Government of Rajasthan is proud to launch the Jan Soochna Portal, conceptualized in collaboration with peoples' campaigns of Rajasthan”. This is the first public portal of its kind in the country aimed at disclosing information on a suo-moto as required under Section 4(2) of the RTI Act.
     
     “It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the Act, to provide as much information suo-moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
     
    This endeavour is a result of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) activists, Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey, who were in the forefront of the RTI movement in India. At the inauguration of the portal by Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot last week, Mr Dey said that the objective of ensuring easy access to the public of information that is rightfully theirs to seek under the RTI Act, was achieved through the joint effort of the Gehlot government and MKSS.
     
    Pune-based RTI activist, Vjay Kumbhar, who attended the inauguration in Jaipur says, “This is the true implementation of Section 4’s suo motu disclosures under the RTI Act and is going to give the common person utmost relief. For, with the click of the mouse, she can procure even third party information entirely. For example information on the MNREGA scheme along with the muster roll has been uploaded. The Rajasthan government and MKKS have done a thorough and ideal job of providing information access under RTI.  This will drastically reduce the number of RTI applications filed under Section 6.’’
     
    Against the backdrop of the Centre’s RTI Amendment Act 2019, which weakened the law through an assault on the independence of the Information Commissioners, the pro active attitude of the Rajasthan government in launching this web portal deserves  appreciation. It eliminates all the hassles of filing RTI applications, followed by first and second appeals. 
     
    So, how does one use this portal? All you need to do is go past the home page of http://jansoochna.rajasthan.gov.in/ to the page that has logos of the 13 government schemes. Click on the one you require and it opens to several relevant documents uploaded in pdf format. The next step planned by the Gehlot government is to develop an APP of this portal so that information can be accessed through the smart mobile.
     
    If, every state government follows Rajasthan’s example, the adverse effects of the RTI Amendments 2019 would be nullified. Kudos to this citizen-friendly venture, where governance becomes pro-active and transparent.
     
    (Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)  
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    NGOs 'substantially' funded by govt compliant to RTI Act: SC
    The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that non-government organisations (NGOs) substantially financed, whether directly or indirectly, by the appropriate government came within the ambit of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
     
    A Division Bench, comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose, observed this while hearing pleas filed by The D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society. It had stated that it couldn't be treated as public authority. 
     
    The Bench said 'substantial' meant a large portion and substantial financing could be both direct or indirect. 
     
    The court said, "We have no doubt that the bodies and NGOs mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) in the second part of the definition are in addition to the four categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d). 
     
    "Clauses (a) to (d) cover only those bodies, which have been established or constituted in the four manners prescribed therein. By adding an inclusive clause in the definition, Parliament intended to add two more categories, the first being in sub-clause (i), which relates to bodies which are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government."
     
    Any body, owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government would be a public authority, the court said. "Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that an NGO substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government would be a public authority amenable to the provisions of the Act."
     
    The court said the RTI Act was enacted with the purpose of bringing transparency in public dealings and probity in public life. "If NGOs or other bodies get substantial finance from the government, we find no reason why any citizen cannot ask for information to find out whether his/her money which has been given to an NGO or any other body is being used for the requisite purpose or not," the Bench said.
     
    However, the top court has left it to the high court to decide on the D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society plea as it didn't find the education institute as NGOs. 
     
    The apex court said the high court would decide the issues whether the educational body was substantially financed or not. "The high court shall give both the parties opportunity to file documents and decide the issue in light of the law laid down by us," the apex court said.
     
    Defining an NGO, the court said the term "appears to have been used for the first time describing an international body, which is legally constituted but non-government in nature." 
     
    "NGO is created by natural or legal entities with no participation or representation of the government," it said and added, even NGOs that were funded totally or partially by the governments essentially maintained the NGO status by excluding government representations in all their organisations.
     
    "In some jurisprudence, they are also referred to as civil society organisations," the apex court said.
     
    Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    GLN Prasad

    5 months ago

    What is substantial was also clarified by SC in earlier judgment as "Without which the institution ceases to exist"

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
      Loading...
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email

    BUY NOW

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 3 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)
    FREE: Your Complete Family Record Book
    Keep all the Personal and Financial Details of You & Your Family. In One Place So That`s Its Easy for Anyone to Find Anytime
    We promise not to share your email id with anyone