India Environment Portal Knowledge for change

About us Contact us
downtoearth-subscribe

Browse by subjects

Above law?

On May 15, 2008, the supreme court declined to entertain a petition that sought directions to make it necessary for judges of all high courts and the apex court to disclose information about their wealth and assets if it was sought under the Right To Information (RTI) Act.

The bench headed by justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathisivam observed "the petition is thoroughly misconceived.' It was filed by People's Union of Civil Liberties. The apex court in a letter in 2006 had asked the Central Information Commission (CIC) not to include it (the court) under the purview of the act.

More recently, Chief Justice of India Justice K G Balakrishan drew a lot of flak when he said that his office did not come under the purview of RTI since he was a constitutional authority and not a public servant. However, later he modified his statement. In an interview to a news channel, the chief justice said that a 1991 supreme court ruling, describes judges as public servants and the parliamentary panel's statement that judges do come under the purview of the RTI were debatable issues.

The act covers "any authority or body or institution of self government, established or constituted by or under the constitution, by any other law made by parliament' under its purview. Wajahat Habibullah, the central information commissioner, has called a hearing of the CIC to examine two RTI appeals that have asked if chief justice is under the purview of the act.

Related Content