Why is a Supreme Court that held that people have the right to know the
financial assets of MPs and MLAs at the time of filing nominations so reluctant
to answer even this limited question?
Time for disclosure
http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/31/stories/2009013154341000.htm
Transparency within the judiciary serves at least two important purposes — it
decreases the opportunities for corrupt practices and promotes public
confidence in the institution. Given these vital roles, it is surprising that
there should be stiff judicial resistance to making public whether members of
the higher judiciary are submitting declarations about their financial assets
as they are expected to. Such declarations after all were supposed to be made
to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the respective high
courts in accordance with a 1997 resolution adopted at an all-India judges
conference. Against this background, it is inexplicable that the Supreme Court
should block the Central Information Commission’s order asking it to provide
this information to an applicant under the Right to Information Act. The
Court’s decision to challenge the order in the Delhi High Court — high courts
are the final court of appeal under the
RTI Act — is both unprecedented and, under the circumstances, quite
unnecessary. It would have been far more sagacious had the Court simply made
the information — which the CIC rightly described as “innocuous” — available.
As the CIC order pointed out, the appellant was not seeking details of the
declared assets but just “the simple information as to whether any such
declaration of assets etc. has ever been filed by the judges of the Supreme
Court or High Courts.”
Why is a Supreme Court that held that people have the right to know the
financial assets of MPs and MLAs at the time of filing nominations so reluctant
to answer even this limited question? The Court’s appeal is based on the
contention that the disclosure of assets by judges to the Chief Justice of
India is voluntary and not mandated by any law. Moreover, the office of the CJI
cannot be construed as a public authority under the RTI Act. The thrust of the
appeal suggests a general anxiety over a larger question — if and to what
extent the standards of information disclosure mandated by parliament are
applicable to the judiciary. This is a complex issue that needs to be settled
to ensure transparency even while safeguarding judicial independence.
Transparency and accountability in the judiciary, however, are larger issues
that go well beyond the question of the applicability of the RTI Act. Since he
assumed office, Chief Justice of India K.G.
Balakrishnan has earned a well-deserved reputation of being responsive to
public and professional concerns. He needs to ensure that not just the answer
to the question whether all the judges have declared their assets but also the
details of the assets themselves are placed in the public domain. Such
transparency will enhance the credibility of the judiciary as an institution.
With Regards
Abi
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"newsline" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/newsline?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
