Thaindian News

New Delhi, Sep 2 (IANS) Upholding the Central Information Commission (CIC) order that office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is well within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court Wednesday ruled that judges should declare their assets.
In a historical judgement, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said judges are accountable but they are also subject to some constraints. He said, “A judge is not unaccountable as is sometimes wrongly understood and is subject to several constraints. The judicial branch lacks either the ’sword or the purse’ controlled by the other two branches.”

The judge also said that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority and it is well within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The court was hearing a appeal by the apex court’s Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) against the CIC’s order that the office of the Chief Justice of India is within the purview of RTI Act.

In a formal interaction with the reporters last Friday, Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had asserted that his office is out of the purview of the RTI Act.

The high court also directed the CPIO of the Supreme Court to release the information sought by the petitioner within four weeks.

The court, however, refused to comment on the recent development of declaration of assets by judges of various state high courts.

During the hearing, Solicitor General G.E. Vahanvati contended that disclosure of information on personal assets by judges will affect the independence of the judicial system.

In a petition filed before the CIC, Subhash Chandra Agrawal, an RTI activist, had asked whether all the judges are declaring details of their assets, including those of their dependents, to the chief justice.

The judge while quoting an Australian judge stated, “Some standards can be prescribed by law, but the spirit of, and the quality of the service rendered by a profession depends far more on its observance of ethical standards. These are far more rigorous than legal standards…. They are learnt not by precept but by the example and influence of respected peers. Judicial standards are acquired, so to speak, by professional osmosis. They are enforced immediately by conscience.”

The court, while upholding the CIC order, also expressed the fear of misusing the information.

“Judgments of courts are to be based on reason, and discuss fairly what is argued. Judges, unlike other sections of members of the public, cannot meet unjustified personal attacks or tirades carried out against them, or anyone from their fraternity, no clarifications can be issued, no justification is given as propriety and canons of judicial ethics require them to maintain silence.”

“The judge is thus unable to go and explain his position to the people,” Justice Bhat observed.

“An honest, but strict or unpopular judge can be unfairly vilified, without anyone giving his version. Similarly, unfounded allegations of improper personal behaviour cannot be defended by the judge in public, even though they can be levelled freely they may tarnish his reputation or worse, and he would have to smart under them, under the haunting prospect of its being resuscitated every now and then,” the judge said while expressing his “experience in the case as humble”.