Judges’ wealth: Info body seeks opinions

[sidmis]

Judges’ wealth: Info body seeks opinions

As Reported By Nagendar Sharma, Hindustan New Delhi, July 04, 2008

In an attempt to settle the controversy surrounding the implementation of Right to Information Act in the judiciary, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed Supreme Court officials and the Department of Personnel and Training to present their views on the matter.

The CIC, in separate notices to the court and department officials, has directed them to be present before its full bench hearing on July 11 with their replies on the controversial issue of whether the wealth details of judges should be made public or not.

The commission directive follows an appeal filed by a Delhi resident, based on a series of recent reports by Hindustan Times, highlighting the refusal of Supreme Court and High Court judges to make public the details of their wealth under the RTI Act. In his appeal, Subhash Chandra Aggarwal has sought to know whether the Supreme Court implemented its own resolution making it mandatory for Supreme Court and High Court judges to submit their wealth details to respective chief justices regularly.

The resolution, passed in a full court meeting attended by 22 judges in May 1997, chaired by then Chief Justice of India, Justice JS Verma, stated: "Every judge of the Supreme Court and High Courts, should within a reasonable timeframe of appointment, provide details to the Chief Justice of all assets in the form of real estate or investment held by him, his/her spouse or anyone dependant on them".

However, it is not known whether this resolution, which did not have a legal backing was ever implemented. Asked about the resolution, Justice Verma said, "It was implemented during my tenure and at that time names of even High Court judges were cleared by the collegium only on furnishing the details of assets. I cannot comment on what happened after I demitted office in 1998".

The CIC has also issued a notice to the DoPT on a separate appeal filed by Aggarwal, in which he has sought to know whether the Chief Justice of India and High Court Chief Justices were covered under the RTI Act or not.

The appeal is based on replied given by the Supreme Court and comments made by CJI KG Balakrishnan in April this year that being a constitutional functionary, his office did not come in the purview of the RTI Act. The CIC decision in the matter would finally settle the controversy surrounding the extent to which the Act could be implemented in the judiciary.

Justice Balakrishnan’s statement claiming exemption from the RTI Act, was strongly countered by Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law & Justice.

Judges? wealth: Info body seeks opinions- Hindustan Times

[colnrkurup]

Such an information was denied by the PIO of Kerala High Court recently. I have posted reaction of Justice VR Krishna Iyer in this forum. Mr.Iyer had advanced certain important aspects worth noting for future arguments.

[karira]

CIC has announced a full bench hearing on 20 October 2008 to decide a matter relating to S C Agarwal v/s Supreme Court:

Information about declaration of all assets in form of real estate or
investments held in the name of Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court or their spouse and also information about declaration of their assets by Hon’ble High Court Judges to their respective Chief Justices.

Interested people can file their submissions before the CIC before 1700 Hours on 17 October 2008.

[navdeep]

It is highly unethical on part of higher judiciary that they want to keep themselves out of ambit of RTI Act 2005. This will set an precedent and further Public Authorities will start getting exemptions.

As DGIT (Inv) which has no relationship to secrecy related to defence of India has been exempted under schedule 2 of RTI Act.

Basically in India, public authorities are in fear now a days as they are being exposed using RTI Act.

Keep in mind

ROAD TO SUCCESS IS ALWAYS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

[sidmis]

CIC to decide if details of judges' assets covered under RTI
as reported in Times of India, 15 Oct 2008, PTI

NEW DELHI: Are details of assets owned by Supreme Court and High Courts covered under the Right to Information Act?

The tricky question, which can have a bearing on issues related to judicial transparency, will be heard in two separate full bench hearings of the Central Information Commission on October 20.

In a public notice, the Commission has invited comments from individuals and organisations on the issue and asked them to give their written submissions on or before October 17.

The question is linked to an RTI plea of Subhash Agrawal who had sought information about a resolution passed by a full-court meeting of Supreme Court judges in 1997 on declaration of assets by judges.

The resolution required "every judge to make a declaration of all assets in the form of real estate or investments held in their name or their spouse and any other person dependent on them to the Chief Justice."

Agrawal wanted to know if such a declaration of assets had ever been filed by judges of the Supreme Court before Chief Justice of India and High Court judges before Chief Justices of respective states.

The Chief Public Information Officer of Supreme Court while denying to provide any details said the information was not with or held by Registry of Supreme Court of India.

In a separate request, Agarwal asked from Department of Personnel and training if judges of Supreme Court and High Courts are covered under the RTI ACT.

On not getting a satisfactory reply, Agrawal pleaded before the CIC to instruct the authorities to provide him accurate information. The matter will also be heard on the same day.

CIC to decide if details of judges' assets covered under RTI-India-The Times of India

[sidmis]

No rules for judges to declare assets:CIC
as reported in Yahoo! News, Oct 16 08

THE SUPREME Court and High Courts have no clear rules that make it mandatory for judges and their families to declare the details of their wealth, the Central Information Commission (CIC) said on Wednesday.

Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said unlike the MPs and government officials, who are bound by rules to declare their assets, the commission is yet to receive from the judiciary the procedure being to be followed by judges.

"This issue has been before us for some time now. We are yet to find out the exact procedure being followed by the judiciary in ascertaining the declaration of assets by the judges," Habibullah told Hindustan Times.

"The details put forward before us till now show there are no clearly defined rules being followed, since there are none. The CIC can order that available information be furnished by institutions, but we can't create information," the CIC said.

The CIC has been grappling with the issue of applicability of the Right to Information Act to the judiciary since more than a year. The judiciary has been opposed to opening itself to public scrutiny.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan, has made it clear that Supreme Court judges submit their wealth details to him, but these won't be made public. Last month, the CJI had also asked the High Courts to follow the same procedure, but did not make it clear whether these should be made public.

Documents show that Supreme Court officials wanted they decide all RTI matters related to judiciary. "No appeal or any other proceedings shall lie against the order passed by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee.

Any appeal arising out of the order passed by an officer of the court inferior to the Registrar General, shall be before the Registrar General," the Supreme Court said in a letter to the CIC. The government has supported the judiciary's stand on implementation of the RTI Act. The law ministry said the judiciary should decide the extent to which the Act should be applicable to the courts.

"The judiciary is not an extension of the government and no directions can be issued from us on the administrative functioning of the judiciary. It is for them to decide the extent to which the RTI Act should be applicable," Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj said.

The issue would once again come up before the CIC on October 20. It will hear appeals filed by a Delhi resident, Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, seeking information whether the CJI is covered under the Right to Information Act and whether it is mandatory for judges to declare assets.

No rules for judges to declare assets:CIC - Yahoo! India News

[sidmis]

CJI wants tainted judges weeded out
as reported by Rakesh Bhatnagar. New Delhi, DNA
Calls for offering them voluntary retirement

The chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan has sent letters to chief justices of all high courts asking them to get rid of tainted lower court judges by offering them voluntary retirement.

Much before the process for judging the judges takes concrete shape, the CJI and the Central Information Commission, the statutory body enabling citizens to secure vital information about people in power or in governance, have stepped in to bring more transparency in the judicial system.

The CJI's communiqué, dispatched on Tuesday, is in the backdrop of the multi-crore scam Uttar Pradesh provident fund scam allegedly involving 34 judges and the cash-by-courier scam that rocked the Punjab and Haryana high court.

Justice Balakrishnan has said such a measure could be taken after reviewing the service records of judicial officers when they attain the age of 50 and 55 years with a view to weeding out those with doubtful integrity.

The letter urges CJs to take appropriate steps to remove judges of subordinate courts who are found "indolent, infirm or with doubtful integrity, reputation and utility''. "Premature retirement, as you know is not a stigma and no civil consequences will follow such retirement," says the CJI.

Earlier, the CJI had allowed the CBI to interrogate judges in the treasury scam and in the cash-by-courier scam. Around the same time, he also recommended to the Prime Minister impeachment proceedings against Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen for alleged financial misconduct.

In a related development, the Central Information Commission has sought feedback from the public and organisations on whether details of assets owned by SC and HC judges is covered under the Right to Information Act, or if they can be disclosed.

The CIC has asked respondents to give their written submissions on or before October 17. The matter will be heard in two separate full bench hearings of the Central Information Commission on October 20.

It will hear an RTI plea by Subhash Agarwal who had sought information about a resolution passed by a full-court meeting of Supreme Court judges in 1997 on declaration of assets by judges.

The 16-point charter adopted by all the judges stipulates "every judge to make a declaration of all assets in the form of real estate or investments held in their name or their spouse and any other person dependent on them to the Chief Justice."

Agarwal has sought to know if such a declaration of assets had ever been filed by the judges.

The chief public information officer of the Supreme Court said the information was not with the Registry of Supreme Court of India. In a separate request, Agarwal also wanted to know if Supreme Court and HC judges are covered under the RTI Act.

On not getting a satisfactory reply, Agrawal pleaded before the CIC to instruct the authorities to provide him accurate information.

© Copyright Permission www.3dsyndication.com

DNA E-Paper - Daily News & Analysis -Mumbai,Pune, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, India

[sidmis]

Crucial CIC hearing on judicial transparency issues tomorrow
as reported in The Hindu, October 19, 2008

New Delhi (PTI): The demand for transparency in judiciary has reached the corridors of Central Information Commission as three separate cases related to holiday expenses by judges, their assets and applicability of RTI while seeking such details, will come up for hearing tomorrow.

The tricky questions, which can have a bearing on public access to issues related to judicial transparency, will be heard separately in a single bench and two full bench hearings of the Commission.

The questions are linked to RTI pleas of Subhash Agrawal who had sought information about the number of issues pertaining to judicial transparency.

In one of his applications, he sought information regarding assets disclosure by sitting judges before the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of High Courts.

The full-court meeting of Supreme Court judges in 1997 had made it compulsory for "every judge to make a declaration of all assets in the form of real estate or investments held in their name or their spouse and any other person dependent on them to the Chief Justice."

Agrawal wanted to know if such a declaration of assets had ever been filed by judges of the Supreme Court before Chief Justice of India and High Court judges before Chief Justices of respective states.

The Chief Public Information Officer of Supreme Court while refusing to provide any details said the information was not with or held by Registry of Supreme Court of India.

In a separate request, Agrawal asked from Department of Personnel and training if judges of Supreme Court and High Courts are covered under the RTI ACT.

Not getting a satisfactory reply, Agrawal pleaded before the CIC to instruct the authorities to provide him accurate information.

The Hindu News Update Service

[karira]

As reported in thehindu.com on 05 November 2008:
The Hindu News Update Service

Can't reveal details of judges' assets under RTI, SC tells CIC



New Delhi (PTI): The question whether assets of judges come under the purview RTI Act continues to hang fire as Supreme Court on wednesday claimed before the CIC that declaration of assets by the Judges before Chief Justice was "voluntary" as per the resolution adopted by Full Bench of Supreme Court in 1997 and cannot be accessed by public under the Act.

Additional Solicitor General Amrendra Saran, representing the apex court, argued before full bench of Central Information Commission that declaration of assets as adapted by the Full Court resolution was an "in-house" voluntary agreement between the judges.

He maintained that revealing any details about it would amount to "breach of confidentiality" as declarations were made to the Chief Justice in his personal capacity.

The CIC, however, resereved its decision on the issue. But during the hearing the Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah asked Saran whether declarations are held by the office of Chief Justice or not? He also asked whether a CJI passes this information to his successor or not.

Information Commissioner M M Ansari also wanted to know how can a Full Court meeting attended by all 22 judges be termed as voluntary. "Are you saying it is not an official document of the Supreme Court?" asked Ansari.

Saran said that he was unaware about the practices being followed by the CJI in keeping and forwarding the applications in this regard.

Senior Lawyer Prashant Bhushan representing Agrawal argued that mere stamping of a document as confidential cannot make it inaccessible as it does not come under the exemption clauses under the RTI Act. He asserted that the resolution was an official document which was given under RTI to the applicant.

[karira]

As reported by Nagender Sharma in Hindustan Times on 06 November 2008:
HindustanTimes ePaper

[karira]

As reported by Manoj Mitta of TNN in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 07 January 2009:
CJI not exempt from RTI purview, CIC tells SC-India-The Times of India

CJI not exempt from RTI purview, CIC tells SC

NEW DELHI: In a boost to judicial accountability, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Tuesday rejected the Supreme Court’s claim that the
Chief Justice of India was beyond the purview of RTI. Accordingly, CIC directed SC to make public the information available with CJI as to whether its judges had been, in terms of a 1997 resolution, regularly filing declarations of their assets.

The decision taken by a three-member bench of CIC headed by Wajahat Habibullah contradicts CJI KG Balakrishnan’s public statement that being a Constitution office holder, he was exempt from RTI. This is also contrary to the file notings made by Justice Balakrishnan, reported first in TOI, approving SC’s evasive reply in November 2007 that 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 RTI.

Upholding an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, CIC rebuffed SC’s attempt to withhold information on the ground that the registry, which came under RTI, was distinct from the CJI’s office, which was the custodian of the declarations of assets made by SC judges.

Ruling that the institution and its head could not be two distinct public authorities, CIC said that the information available with the CJI must be “deemed” to be available with Supreme Court.

“If any information is available with one section of the department, it shall be deemed to available with the public authority as one single entity.”

Since the appellant did not seek copies of the declarations, CIC disallowed SC’s alternative contention that the information could not be disclosed as it attracted exemption under Section 8(1)(e) as the declarations had been received by CJI in a “fiduciary relationship” or Section 8(1)(j) as it was “personal information” which had “no relationship to any public activity or interest.” The bench consisting of Wajahat Habibullah, A N Tiwari and M M Ansari directed SC’s information officer to disclose within 10 days to Agrawal whether its judges had been filing declarations of assets in compliance with the resolution adopted by the entire bench of the apex court in 1997.

Though the judiciary had informally maintained that judges had been filing declarations of assets, it was reluctant to say anything on the subject under RTI lest it opened a floodgate of queries related to judicial probity. The tacit, if self-serving, suggestion was RTI could not be allowed to compromise judicial independence.

[taurus]

It has taken eight months to come to this stage. It is anybody's guess, how much more time it will take for the actual info to be made available, if ever it is made available!

[colnrkurup]

Enough time to clense the stable