RTI issue: Judiciary must set good precedent

Vikash Ranjan

New Delhi

Thu, 24 Apr 2008: 

Being a judge is any reason for the person to be honest. It seems to hold truth at least from the remark of Chief Justice of India who thinks only a handful of judges might be corrupt but the majority are trustworthy.

In other words it can be said the Right to Information t from onwards should be bisected between two- one which applies to all government servants and the other which should be restricted to Supreme Court and High Court judges exempting form an obligation of divulging details of their wealth and disciplinary action taken against them on corruption and misconduct charges.

The ongoing debate fuelled by the judges’ reluctance to submit to the Right to Information (RTI) Act has cracked headlines as well as aroused much curiosity of common man too who looks judiciary as a last hope of their grievances to be heard by.

The issue got momentum after Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s remark by saying RTI should apply to all public servants without uttering about Chief Justice, which is a high constitutional functionary. But he advocated for the RTI to be applied to every government servants and they must not conceal the facts from the people otherwise it would affect the credibility of the constitution.

It is out of speculation why the Chief Justice wants to keep judiciary aloof of the RTI Act even when all the government offices and the elected representatives are mandatorily bound to such an Act. Why the advocacy of equitability today talking in terms of inequitable approach between ‘office and office?’ It is clearly stated in the RTI charter that information that could endanger national security only be exempted from disclosing.

The debate now has been shifted from what the RTI application with regards to Supreme Court judges initially had sought. In the application the request was made to know whether the judges were declaring their assets and not asked them to reveal their assets.

The quarters of judiciary itself have contradictory views. Whereas the Chief Justice was reluctant to revealing assets by saying Constitutional functionaries were not covered under the RTI Act, some of the significant jurists comprising former CJIs Verma and VN Khare had also propped up demands for declaration of assets by judges. Lots of jurists having view that judges must set an example by pronouncing their assets to avoid slightest of reason to suspect them.

However, after noticing the RTI issue gradually catching fire throughout the nation the CJI K G Balakrishnan adopted defensive approach later by saying all the judges of the Supreme Court regularly declared their assets to him, which is completely confidential and not liable to make publicise.

The Chief Justice response contradicts its own resolution of 1997 on declaration of assets, which stated, "Every judge of the Supreme Court and High Courts would declare all the assets owned by him/her and the family, within a reasonable period of assuming office."

The judiciary acting as a watchdog in the democracy must be more accountable in its act. Judges should set good precedent behind them. The Prime Minister too indicated few day ago corruption as a challenge facing by both the pillar of the democracy-government and judiciary.