First aspect is about interpretation of the present Law--the RTI ACT. With due respects, the opinion of the Hon'ble CJI is not correct; especially in view of Section-2(h)(a) of the RTI ACT, which clearly and unambiguously covers all authorities and bodies established or constituted under the Constitution of India .
Second aspect is that, if the CJI or someone else feels that Supreme Court and the CJI should be exempted, then they should seek for
necessary amendment to the RTI ACT. What is your opinion, brothers and sisters.
Why the RTI Act alone ? If one has a chance ask why not ask for HEAVEN ? Why can't they ask amendments to the IPC, CrPC and all Acts and Rules of India which are not making them confortable to act at free will and accord so that none of the inconvenient provisions of laws of India is made applicable to them. ?
Cannot find the original press report, but found the denial:
As reported by TNN in The Times of India, Hyderabad Edition on 17 May 2008: Welcome
‘There was no meeting between CJI and NDMC boss’
New Delhi: The secretary general of the Supreme Court, V K Jain, said on Friday that the reported meeting between Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and NDMC chairman Parimal Rai “neither took place nor was ever sought.’’ The spokesperson of NDMC has also denied the meeting on behalf of Parimal Rai. Both were reacting to a TOI story titled, “CJI seeks to break norms for office space at home,’’ which was based on a letter written by NDMC on April 10 expressing its inability to sanction CPWD’s plan for additional construction at CJI’s residence since it was contrary to rules.
The story also reported a meeting between the CJI and the NDMC chairman about which it had learnt from sources.
Public Officers have their own jurisdiction and Authority bestowed on them by enactments by Parliament under the authority vested on them by our Constitution. The judiciary summon even the elected representative, Ministers etc by virtue of the powers entrusted. Similarly the Information Commisssion can summon any one falling under the perview of the RTI Act by virtue of the powers vested in them. Ultimately even the CJI has admitted that RTI Act is applicable to him. This means every provisions stipulated therein is applicable to him. This include attending to summons. There cannot be any doubt. Judicial Officers being under the RTI Act they have to abide by summons. It depends on how bold the Commissions are. The Commission should treat every cityzen at par while exercising its powers. If someone fail to abide by him the Commission should proceed as per the provisions of the Act. I doubt the spent energy type Commissions will have guts.
"President, Chief Justice and other constitutional functionaries are beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Right to Information Act,".
Constitutional posts don't come under RTI Act: Centre to HC
New Delhi (PTI): The Centre has said constitutional functionaries do not come within the ambit of RTI Act and that Information Commission cannot direct the government to reveal information pertaining to their functioning.
"President, Chief Justice and other constitutional functionaries are beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Right to Information Act," Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra contended before the Delhi High Court.
The Centre made the submission, while challenging the Central Information Commission's order directing it to place the file relating to transfer of High Court Judges before the Commission.
"These are constitutional functionaries and their functioning is not open for disclosure under the Right to Information Act," Malhotra said, while pleading to stay the order.
Justice Rekha Sharma, after hearing the contention of the Government, stayed the order and asked the information seeker who had approached the CIC to file her response by August 26 when the matter would be taken up for further hearing.
Shruti Singh Chauhan, a Delhi resident, had filed an RTI application seeking details from the government on the basis of which High Court judges are being transfered.
The Ministry of Law and Justice, however, declined his application saying that these informations cannot be revealed to the general public.