New Delhi: In a boost to judicial accountability, the Central Information
Commission (CIC) on Tuesday rejected the S u p re m e C o u r t 's claim
that the Chief Justice of India was beyond the purview of RTI. Accordingly,
CIC directed the SC to make public the information available with the CJI as
to whether its judges had been, in terms of a 1997 resolution, regularly
filing declarations of their assets.
The decision taken by a three-member Bench of CIC, headed by Wajahat
Habibullah, contradicts CJI K G Balakrishnan's contention that being a
Constitution office holder, he was exempt from RTI.
This is also contrary to the file notings made by Justice Balakrishnan,
reported first in TOI, approving SC's evasive reply in November 2007 that
the information relating to declaration of assets by judges was "not held by
or under the control of " its registry and therefore could not be furnished
by its information officer under RTI.
Upholding an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the
CIC rebuffed SC's attempt to withhold information on the ground that the
registry, which came under RTI, was distinct from the CJI's office, which
was the custodian of the declarations of assets made by SC judges.
Ruling that the institution and its head could not be two distinct
public authorities, CIC said the information available with the CJI must be
"deemed" to be available with SC. "If any information is available with one
section of the department, it shall be deemed to available with the public
authority as one single entity."
Since the appellant did not seek copies of declarations, CIC disallowed
SC's contention that the information was exempt under Sec 8(1)(E) as the
declarations had been received by CJI in a "fiduciary relationship" or Sec
8(1)(J) as it was "personal information" which had "no relationship to any
public activity or interest."
http://bit.ly/b0TK
-----------------------------
http://www.saveindianfamily.org/
http://www.societymirror.info/
http://www.crisp-india.org/
http://www.antidowry.org/
http://www.wethemen.us/
I also blog at:
http://legalterror.wordpress.com
Keep Fighting Legal Terrorism
Keep Fighting Inequality in Justice
http://www.pollsb.com/webdigr
http://www.myntra.com/affiliate/329
If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of progress?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
