This article focuses on the recent declaration by the Supreme Court stating that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The ruling was released by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. It features several critical aspects of the ruling, its outcomes, and potential implications.
Key Aspects of the Ruling
Eminently, the Supreme Court declared that as a “public authority,” the Chief Justice of India’s office is an integral part of the institution. By extension, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, the same applies to the office of the CJI. The court also asserted that the judiciary cannot operate entirely in isolation since judges hold constitutional positions and perform public duty.
However, the court emphasized that the Right to Privacy remains crucial and needs to be balanced with transparency when deciding to release information from the CJI’s office. Moreover, it reinforced that the RTI should not be employed as a surveillance tool and that judicial independence is a priority when considering transparency.
In regard to the appointment of judges, the Supreme Court ruled that only the names of judges recommended by the Collegium for appointment could be made public, not the reasons behind their selection.
Implications of the Ruling
With the new ruling in place, the office of the CJI will now accept RTI applications. According to the RTI Act, 2005, each public authority is obliged to provide information to anyone seeking details under the Act. Under the Act’s terms, a Public Authority includes bodies constituted by or under the Constitution. Article 124 pertains to the establishment of the Supreme Court of India. Information may come in various forms like records, documents, memos, e-mails, etc.
The decision may serve as a precedent for other entities such as political parties, schools, trusts, and public-private partnerships that have previously resisted categorization as public authorities under the Act.
Historical Context
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Implementation of the RTI Act. |
| 2011 | The CBI was granted exemption from the RTI Act. |
| 2019 | Supreme Court’s ruling declares CJI’s office as a public authority under the RTI Act. |
Inconsistent Applications of the Act
Despite the act’s clear regulations, public authorities like the offices of the Prime Minister and the President have often refused to provide information, citing separate Supreme Court observations. For instance, in 2011, the Supreme Court noted that officials are required to furnish only existing information held by the public authority and not collate or create new data.
It is crucial to mention that some organizations, like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), are exempt from the RTI Act – this exemption was bestowed in 2011. The recent Supreme Court’s ruling fortifies the transparency and accountability aspects of public functions in India, highlighting the balance between privacy and transparency.
