At long last, the Supreme Court (SC) decided the Subhash Agrawal matter and ruled that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) would come under RTI.
The entire RTI fraternity has been rejoicing since then just as it had rejoiced when the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) had ruled in 2013 that all political parties would come under RTI.
Everyone knows what happened to the CIC order; the political parties still continue to dodge that order despite the fact that the matter had gone up to the apex court where, I understand, it is still pending. The taste of the pudding is in its eating.
Therefore, it is to be seen if the CJI’s office and the SC would disclose the information sought by Agrawal and many others who might seek similar information in future or take recourse to many interpretations of the exemption provisions and refuse full disclosure. Agrawal, the RTI activist, had sought information from the SC arising out of a resolution that court had passed earlier regarding disclosure by its judges of their assets etc.
He had also asked for information regarding the appointment of some specific judges, in other words, about the proceedings of the Collegium.
The SC Information Officer denied the information claiming that the SC Registry did not hold such information. His first appeal was also rejected by the First Appellate Authority of the SC.
Thereafter, Agrawal approached the CIC in second appeal. The CIC upheld his appeal and ordered that the desired information be disclosed.
The SC Registry went in writ against this order to the Delhi High Court which rejected the writ and upheld the order of the CIC. Since this order was passed by a Single Bench, the SC Registry challenged it before a Full Bench which too upheld the order of the CIC and asked for disclosure of the information.
It is against the orders of the Delhi High Court that the SC Registry had filed these civil appeals way back in 2010.
The SC had stayed the orders of the High Court at that time and, some years later, referred the matter to a Constitutional Bench.
Nearly 10 years after Agrawal had sought the information, the SC finally disposed of the case recently holding that the desired information might be disclosed subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Information Officer of the SC had sought to differentiate the office of the CJI from the SC itself implying that the CJI was not a public authority and, by implication, not subject to the RTI Act.
The SC’s present order settles the matter and makes the CJI a public authority liable to disclose information held by it under RTI.
The Constitutional Bench has, in the course of this order, enunciated the importance of transparency in public service and the role RTI plays in bringing about the same.
This is a reaffirmation of the position SC had first taken in 1975 when it had held that the right to information was a fundamental right of the citizens.
Is this order worth rejoicing? Yes and no; that the Court conclusively declares the CJI as a public authority is a great relief.
Agrawal has waited for 10 years for the information and now it is up to the SC Information Officer to decide how much of the desired information he would disclose.
With the SC having defined what is ‘personal information’ in a number of cases in a highly restrictive manner, it is unlikely that Subhash Agrawal would get much information. satyanandamishra@hotmail.com