Helpful Member
The enire episode is unfortunate. In Malayalam there is a saying that "Only those having something in their purse need be scared of his travel route " - indirectly, it means that why should someone be scared of disclosure if they have nothing to hide ? Does our Hon'ble CJI doubt that some of the members of his 'palton' might be having skeletons in their cupboard ? Being afraid of the Contempt of Court Acts, WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA in any case are scared to open their mouth irrespective of the whatever the Architects of our Constitution has guarenteed or bestowed on them. Now our Hon'ble CJI does not want the RTI Act to harmonise the conflicting interests if at all any while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideals etc., etc., envisaged in the preamble of the RTI Act
The RTI Act says that the public authority means any authority or body or institution of self-government establised or constituted by or under Constitution.
Article 124 of our Constitution lays down that :- Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court.- (1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven 88 other Judges.(2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years:
Article 51A of the Constitution lays down that -. Fundamental Duties - It shall be the duty of every citizens ofIndia-(a) to abide by the Constitution etc etc.
This leave no doubt on "unpath" WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIAT that every cityzen and everything established under the Constitution is under the Constitution. Who is paying for the establishment of the Hon'ble CJI ? WE THE OPEPLE. Who gave them the power to establish any authority over WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA ? The Constitution. If the CJI is not under Constitution, he is under whom ? He cannot say that His Excellency the President of India is not above him ? When the President himself is under the Constitution how can someone under the President cannot be under the Constituion?
WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA are confuced. Will the Hon'ble CJI and our Hon'ble Supreme Court make an effort to educate the "unpath' WE THE P[EOPLE OF INDIA without leading them to further confusion ? May Almighty God Help them in the noble task .
Helpful Member
As reported at indianexpress.com on January 19,2008
Gavel, gown and tie — those we know about. But what else do our Supreme Court judges own? The story begins in 1997, where an informal resolution of the Supreme Court required judges to declare their assets, in private, to the chief justice. Recently, the Central Information Commission held that under the Right to Information Act these private declarations of judges were not so private any more. They were open to public scrutiny. The current Supreme Court chief justice disagreed, and in an unprecedented step the Supreme Court registrar filed an application before a lower court — the high court is the sole appellate authority under the RTI Act — to quash the CIC order.
Land-ing trouble
But the story has come full circle. The very chief justice who passed the informal resolution in 1997 — former Chief Justice J.S. Verma — has indicated that he thinks the assets of Supreme Court judges are very much in the public domain; there is no constitutional bar to disclosing this. Justice Verma is known for his legal acumen as well as unimpeachable integrity. As is the current Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, who decisively acted against allegations of corruption, even to the extent of initiating inquires and recommending impeachment. Which is why his decision to oppose the public declaration of assets has puzzled commentators.
SOurce : Land-ing trouble
A Times View in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 20 Janaury 2009:
TIMES VIEW | Judges should disclose assets -Editorial-Opinion-The Times of India
TIMES VIEW | Judges should disclose assets
In a strange turn of events, the Supreme Court has moved Delhi high court against a recent Central Information Commission (CIC) order on making assets of judges public. The apex court has challenged the order arguing that the information, which isn't in the public domain, cannot be given to applicants under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
This is not a new controversy. An earlier RTI application enquiring whether Supreme Court judges were making a periodic declaration of their assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) a practice that was adopted in 1997 was returned by the court saying it had no information on this matter. A few days later, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan said that his office was not bound by RTI since he was a constitutional authority. In its petition to Delhi high court, the apex court has said that declaration of assets by judges to the CJI is governed by an informal resolution and wasn't mandatory under law It also reiterated that the CJI was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
The response of the apex court is surprising since the CIC had merely asked whether Supreme Court judges were declaring their assets or not. If all government offices as well as the country's elected representatives are subject to RTI, there is no reason why the judiciary should be an exception. If there has to be an exception for RTI, it should only be for information that affects national security.
The Supreme Court must be the most accountable institution in any democracy because of its role as a watchdog. Indeed, judges must be held to standards that are higher than other government officials. The apex court should be the first to embrace the ethics of transparency and voluntarily disclose assets of judges. There has been considerable controversy in recent times on corruption in the judiciary. It would be in the judiciary's interest to quell such talk by disclosing assets of judges.
A Counterview by Naomi D'souza in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 20 Janaury 2009:
COUNTERVIEW | SC judges are above the fray-Editorial-Opinion-The Times of India
COUNTERVIEW | SC judges are above the fray
In a well-meaning but short-sighted move, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has declared that Supreme Court judges must disclose their assets under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. SC judges already provide the Chief Justice of India with a list of assets. As the CJI, Justice Balakrishnan, has already pointed out, there is no statute or law that insists that judges must disclose their assets. The document that they give to the CJI is given in trust, which Balakrishnan would be betraying if he were to make the document public.
Forcing judges to disclose details of their assets may have unintended consequences. While the measure would satisfy those who believe that the judiciary is tainted by corruption, the amount of information about the judges that will then become available in the public sphere is dangerous. Not only could some elements use the information to pressure certain judges into issuing favourable verdicts, it could also result in their personal safety being compromised. Far from checking judicial corruption, revealing assets could have just the opposite effect.
The judiciary in India is one of the few public institutions that people still trust, and with good reason. The Supreme Court, in particular, has emerged in the recent past as a defender of civil rights and has increasingly taken on an activist role. SC judges have proven themselves to be worthy of their office. They should not have to constantly prove themselves over and over again. Demanding a declaration of assets amounts to an expression of mistrust in the SC and its judges despite the stellar job they have been doing over the years.
If judges want to disclose their wealth under the RTI, they are free to do so. However, compelling them to make this information available to the public is unfair and will not have the desired result. It is best to have faith in these sentinels of the law and trust them to do their jobs without bias or influence.
As reported in deccanherald.com on 20 Janaury 2009:
Deccan Herald - HC relief for SC judges in assets case
HC relief for SC judges in assets case
The Delhi High Court on Monday stayed an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which directed the Supreme Court information officer to reveal the details regarding the declaration of wealth by the apex court judges under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
In an interim order, Justice S Ravinder Bhat said the execution of the CIC order was stayed till the final disposal of the petition filed by the SC Registry. The petition said the CIC ruling was bad in law and against the provisions of the RTI Act as the judges were holding constitutional posts.
In 1997, a full bench of the SC, chaired by the then Chief Justice J S Verma, had passed a resolution making it mandatory for the judges to regularly declare their assets and also those of their family members.
However, the advocate appearing for the SC before the CIC claimed that it was an informal resolution. “If any information was provided under the RTI Act on the basis of this resolution, it would lead to a breach of confidentiality,’’ he had said.
Now it is a convention among the SC judges to submit the list of their assets to the Court registry, which is not subject to public scrutiny. However, a controversy arose as there was ambiguity in the RTI Act on the inclusion of apex court judges in its purview. Meanwhile, Justice Verma in a recent interview said that it was obligatory for the apex court to follow the resolution as it was passed by a full-bench.
On January 6, a three-member bench of the CIC headed by Wajahat Habibullah said that the CJI and the SC judges were bound to reveal their assets to the public. “If any information is available with one section of the department, it shall be deemed to have been available with the public authority as one single entity,” the order said. In a note, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan said the information relating to declaration of assets by judges was “not held by or under the control of” its registry and therefore could not be furnished by its information officer under the RTI Act.
But, upholding an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the CIC rebuffed the SC attempt to withhold information on the ground that the registry, which came under the RTI Act, was distinct from the CJI’s office, which was the custodian of the declaration of assets made by the judges.
Helpful Member
" In an interim order, Justice S Ravinder Bhat said the execution of the CIC order was stayed till the final disposal of the petition filed by the SC Registry. The petition said the CIC ruling was bad in law and against the provisions of the RTI Act as the judges were holding constitutional posts."
Wonderful ! The judges are holding constitutional posts; but claim that they are not bound to abide by the constitution ! If they are not bound by the constitution how are they holding the constitutional posts ? Wonderful ! They want to hold the posts in accordance with the constitution and do not want to abide by it. What do they have to say about following provisions of the constitution ?
124. Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court.- (1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven 88 other Judges.(2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years:
51A. Fundamental Duties.-It shall be the duty of every citizens of
India-(a) to abide by the Constitution etc.,
An Opinion in epaper.sakaaltimes.com on 21 January 2009:
OPINION - In favour of transparency
http://epaper.sakaaltimes.com/ST/ST/...09_006_005.jpg
As reported by Dhananjay Mahapatra and Abhinav Garg of TNN in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 21 January 2009:
I am biased, can't be friend of court: Fali Nariman-India-The Times of India
I am biased, can't be friend of court: Fali Nariman
NEW DELHI: In a major embarrassment for the judiciary, reputed constitutional expert Fali S Nariman on Tuesday declined Delhi High Court's
request seeking his assistance as amicus curiae in the case filed by the Supreme Court challenging a directive that can lead to apex court judges having to publicly declare their assets.
Nariman sent a two-sentence letter to the HC declining to assist it in the contentious matter. He also attached a document expressing his frank views opposing the stand taken by the Chief Justice of India and the SC.
In the annexure, which is a signed letter to the editor of a daily, the noted jurist says, "Judges of the highest court who have powers to life and death over us citizens, judges who can (and do) send people to jail for contempt of its order must - I repeat must - show that they too are amenable to good practice."
The letter adds, "That is how they earn the respect of us commoners. We in India learn by example - never by precept. For judges of the highest court to litigate as to whether or not they should disclose their assets is as bad as judges going to the court on whether it was lawful for income tax to be deducted from the salaries they get! We have good judges, but we need more judicial wisdom."
The HC had on Monday stayed the Central Information Commission's directive on judge's assets after an appeal filed by the Supreme Court and requested Nariman to be the amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court).
Quite a regular
Disclosure of Assets by the Hon’ble Justices under the RTI Act 2005.
Apropos the different articles on the above mentioned subject by our expert members. The subject matter is getting the attention of Judiciary and the Hon’ble CIC’s Office. By a recent order passed by the Hon’ble Commission, had asked the Hon’ble S.C to provide the information within 10 days. The directive came on an RTI application filed by Shri S.C Aggarwal, a resident of New Delhi. It has been gathered that the Solicitor General submitted that there was nothing under the Constitution or under any other law that requires Supreme Court Judges/Judges to declare their assets to the CJI/other authorities.
The Hon’ble Commission had ruled that the Apex Court is not exempt from the RTI Act and had made it clear that the CJI, too is covered under the Act. Since the Hon’ble Judges are being paid their salary out of the Tax collected from the general public, the Public has every right to derive the information of assets held by the Hon’ble Judges and assess whether the same have been in accordance with the known source of income or not. We are reading in the newspapers that black sheeps are there in the Judiciary too. The RTI Act 2005 has been enacted in order to inculcate a sense of governance and transparency amongst Public Authorities. It is a matter of deep regret that the Hon’ble Judges instead of declaring their particulars of assets indulging in difference of opinion with the Hon’ble Office of CIC, thus propagating a bad culture and create precedence to be followed. Rather the Hon’ble Judges should create a morale to other general public as we are relying upon the judiciary. To sum up we pray please do not dilute the different provisions of RTI Act 2005, which is a powerful to tool to arrest the tendency of corrupt practices, to certain extent. On the contrary why not the Govt. stipulate a mandatory clause to declare the asset particulars of an incumbent before he/she being considered for the post of a Hon’ble Judge ?
As reported by Seema Chisti in indianexpress.com on 22 January 2009:
Judge assets: CIC wonders why SC opposing ‘innocuous’ order
Judge assets: CIC wonders why SC opposing ‘innocuous’ order
New Delhi: Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah has said that while the Supreme Court was “well within its right” to contest an order under the RTI Act asking whether its judges had revealed their assets to the Chief Justice, “the order was something quite innocuous”.
“The only thing we wanted to ensure was if the courts, like all public bodies, are making information about the judges available, and are essentially under the ambit of the RTI,” Habibullah told The Indian Express.
On January 6, the Central Information Commission had asked the Supreme Court to disclose, under the RTI Act, if judges of SC and HCs declared their assets. The apex court had appealed against the order to the Delhi HC, and the latter stayed it two days ago. The apex court’s stand is that information relating to declaration of assets by the SC judges to the CJI is not a mandatory exercise under the law. However, a full court resolution of SC on May 7, 1997, required every judge to declare to the CJI assets including properties or any other investment in the name of their spouse and any person dependent on them. Challenging the CIC order, the SC said the order is excessive and without jurisdiction and the appeal made a distinction between the apex court as an institution and the office of the CJI. “Neither is the office of the CJI a public authority nor does the information relating to judges’ assets come in the public domain,” the Supreme Court said.
The next hearing in the Delhi HC is on February 12. It is unclear who will represent the CIC, but it is looking to make its point that all public bodies, “unless excluded by Section 8”, are subject to the RTI, and cannot claim immunity.
Meanwhile, Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has said the judges of the higher judiciary should also be subjected to accountability on issues like the declaration of assets and on PILs. Referring to the controversy over declaration of assets by SC judges and the right of public to access this information, he said while even MPs were not required to make their assets public under law, “when a law (RTI Act) was made, I respect the law”. He said he had allowed access to information about MPs’ assets to anyone who sought it.
Posting Permissions 
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks