Chief Justice of India office under Right to Information: Supreme Court

Agencies
November 13, 2019

New Delhi, Nov 13: The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority and falls within the ambit of the Right to Information Act.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi upheld the 2010 Delhi High Court verdict and dismissed three appeals filed by Secretary General of the Supreme Court and the Central Public Information officer of the apex court.

Cautioning that RTI cannot be used as a tool of surveillance, the top court in its judgement held that judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency.

The bench, also comprising Justices N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, said that only the names of judges recommended by the Collegium for appointment can be disclosed, not the reasons.

While the CJI and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna have penned one judgement, Justices Ramana and Chandrachud have written separate verdicts.

It said that the Right to Privacy is an important aspect and it has to be balanced with transparency while deciding to give out information from the office of the Chief Justice.

Justice Chandrachud, who wrote a separate judgment, said the judiciary cannot function in total insulation as Judges enjoy constitutional post and discharge public duty.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna said independence of judiciary and transparency go hand in hand.

Justice Ramana, who concurred with Justice Khanna, said there should be balancing formula for Right to Privacy and Right to transparency and independence of judiciary should be protected from breach.

The High Court on January 10, 2010 had held that the CJI office comes within the ambit of the RTI law, saying judicial independence was not a judge's privilege, but a responsibility cast upon him.

The 88-page judgement was seen as a personal setback to the then CJI, K G Balakrishnan, who has been opposed to disclosure of information relating to judges under the RTI Act.

The high court verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah (since retired) and Justices Vikramjit Sen and S Muralidhar. The bench had dismissed a plea of the Supreme Court that contended bringing the CJI's office within the RTI Act would "hamper" judicial independence.

Justice Sen retired as the judge of the apex court, while Justice Murlidhar is a sitting judge of the High Court.

The move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist S C Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the apex court should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".

The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?" He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.

Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.

Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 22,2024

kejriatishi.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 22: The Aam Aadmi Party has made it clear that Arvind Kejriwal will remain the Delhi Chief Minister despite his arrest in the liquor policy case. While no law would stop the AAP leader from running the state from prison, the jail guidelines would make it extremely difficult.

Kejriwal was arrested yesterday by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), following his avoidance of nine summons issued by the investigative agency in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case. 

The decision to apprehend Kejriwal transpired shortly after the High Court's denial of protection from arrest. With this development, Kejriwal becomes the second opposition Chief Minister to face arrest by the ED within a span of fewer than two months, following Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's similar fate in January 2024 due to allegations in a graft case. Subsequently, Hemant Soren was replaced by his party colleague, Champai Soren.

Delhi government minister Atishi declared shortly after Kejriwal's arrest that he would not step down from his position. However, the legality and feasibility of a detained Chief Minister continuing to fulfill official duties warrant examination.

A former law officer of Delhi's Tihar Jail says that an inmate can only hold two meetings in a week, which would make it difficult for Mr Kejriwal to carry out his responsibilities as Chief Minister.

Can he run government from prison?

While theoretically plausible, governing from detention presents logistical challenges. However, there exists no explicit prohibition against a Chief Minister conducting official responsibilities while under arrest. Disqualification only occurs upon conviction.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 outlines disqualification provisions for specific offenses, necessitating a conviction for those holding office.

Will centre impose president’s rule?

Constitution expert SK Sharma told TOI that there exists no specific legal provision mandating the automatic resignation of a state's Chief Minister upon arrest. He cited the example of former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav, who appointed his wife Rabri Devi as CM during his arrest. "Former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav made his wife Rabri Devi the CM of the state when he was arrested. More recently, Hemant Soren in Jharkhand also resigned. Calling cabinet meetings in the jail or review meetings with officials in his cell does not seem practical," said Sharma.

Sharma further indicated that if AAP persisted in retaining Kejriwal as CM, it could lead to a deadlock, potentially prompting the Centre to impose President's rule in Delhi.

What may happen next?

Despite AAP's unwavering stance on Kejriwal's continuation in office, internal sources say that potential successors, including Atishi and health minister Saurabh Bharadwaj. Atishi, known for her extensive portfolio and close ties to Kejriwal, alongside Bharadwaj, a prominent minister with significant responsibilities, emerged as likely contenders. Additionally, sources speculated about the surprise candidacy of Kejriwal's wife, Sunita, given her background as a revenue services officer and active involvement in party affairs.

However, finding a successor of comparable stature to Kejriwal, a national convener of the party and three-time Delhi CM, presents a formidable challenge for AAP.

Role of Delhi's Lieutenant Governor

Delhi's unique power structure, featuring an elected Chief Minister and a Lieutenant Governor appointed by the Centre, presents a complex scenario. Kejriwal's ability to continue as CM hinges on legal relief, failing which the Lieutenant Governor can seek Presidential intervention, potentially leading to the imposition of President's rule.

Recent cases demonstrate how denial of bail can compel resignation, highlighting the precarious position of arrested officials.

In light of these developments, the Lieutenant Governor could invoke 'failure of constitutional machinery' to justify President's rule, thereby bringing the national capital under direct Union government control until the end of the current Assembly's tenure in February 2025.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 16,2024

election.jpg

New Delhi: The 2024 general election for 543 Lok Sabha seats will be held in seven phases from April 19, Chief Election Commissioner Rajeev Kumar said today, announcing the largest democratic exercise in the world. Results will be announced on June 4.

The seven phases: 
April 19
April 26
May 7
May 13
May 20
May 25
June 1

Simultaneous election for Lok Sabha and assembly will be held in four states -- Sikkim, Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh and Andhra.  

By-elections will also be held for 26 assembly seats across multiple states, including Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.

Mr Kumar, announcing the dates, sent out a strong message on fake news on social media, saying political parties should ensure responsible social media behaviour -- "verify before you amplify".

"Fake news will be dealt with severely as per existent laws.. Section 79 (3)(B) of the IT Act empowers nodal officers in each state to remove unlawful content," he said.

The other strong message was on violation of model code in terms of hate speeches. "There should be issue-based campaign, no hate speeches, no speeches along caste or religious lines, no criticism of anyone's personal lives," he said.

The media must clarify when they carry political adverts, those cannot masquerade as news, he said. Individual messages regarding this would be sent to the candidates, he added.

The commission has employed 2,100 advisors to keep an eye on these issues and strong action will be taken regarding this, he said.

Voters above the age of 85 years and persons with disabilities, with 40 per cent disability can vote from home, Mr Kumar said. Around 82 lakh voter are above the age of 85, he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 15,2024

SCSBI.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 13: The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the State Bank of India (SBI) for not disclosing complete details of Electoral Bonds, including unique alfa numeric numbers, furnished to the Election Commission for uploading on the website.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the SBI seeking its response on Monday after the court was informed that the issuing bank for the Electoral Bonds has not disclosed unique alfa numeric number of each bond.

"They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India. All details have to be provided by the SBI," the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said as per the Constitution bench judgment of February 15, 2024, all details were to be disclosed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted since the SBI was a party to the judgment, notice may be issued to it.

The court said the counsel for SBI should have been here.

"If you see the judgment, we have specified that bond numbers have to be provided," the bench said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the main petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

On an application by the EC, the bench said the details of Electoral Bonds furnished by the poll panel before the top court should be scanned and returned to it for the purpose of uploading on the website.

The Election Commission through advocate Amit Sharma filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to release data on electoral bonds furnished to the top court in terms of previous orders of April 12, 2019 and November 2, 2023.

As per March 11, 2024 order, the Election Commission on Thursday uploaded the data on electoral bonds furnished to it by the SBI.

However, in an application, the poll panel said it had furnished to the Supreme Court a number of sealed envelopes, containing details on EBs encashed by the political parties, during the course of hearing in the matter.

It sought a direction for the return of those sealed envelopes to comply with the directions to upload it on the website as per order of March 11.

On Monday, the Supreme Court had told the SBI to furnish details of purchasers of Electoral Bonds and names of political parties redeemed those instruments by March 12 to the Election Commission, rejecting its plea for extension of time until June 30 for the purpose.

It had then directed the Election Commission to publish the information provided by the SBI on its website on March 15.

In its February 15, 2024 judgment, the SC had declared the Electoral Bonds scheme, introduced in 2018 for donation to political parties, as "unconstitutional" for being violative of the right to information.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.