New Delhi: The Supreme Court may challenge a ruling by the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority to assess judges' assets and falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act, top Supreme Court officials said.
"We have just received the copy of the High Court judgment. We are examining it at present. It will take a few days before we can say what to do with it," Supreme Court Secretary General MP Bhadran told IANS.
Though Bhadran refused to categorically say what would be the Apex court registry's future action, other senior court officials said the Supreme Court "may have to sit in judgement over the high court ruling".
The Apex court's officials say the issue that needs to be settled is whether the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) fell in the purview of the Right to Information Act (RTI). Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan is opposed to the view.
"In the name of transparency, the office of the Chief Justice could not be stripped naked," an official said.
A Delhi High Court bench on Wednesday ruled - "The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act. The CJI holds the information pertaining to asset declarations in his capacity as (the) Chief Justice."
The High Court ruling came on an appeal by the Apex court's registry against the Central Information Commission's order that the CJI was a public authority.
In a formal interaction with the reporters on last Friday, Chief Justice Balakrishnan had asserted that his office is out of the purview of the RTI Act.
"The office of the Chief Justice is privy to so much of information like privileged communication between various constitutional authorities, complaints against judges etc. How can all this information be disclosed (under RTI Act)?" the Chief Justice had said.
Supreme Court officials said they had basically challenged that aspect of the Central Information Commission which says "whatever information is with the chief justice has to be with the registrar".
The officials also pointed out that the Supreme Court judges' latest resolution to make public their assets lacked the force of legal mandate and so it was not even binding on the judges.
Comments
0 comment