The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declared the judiciary, including the Chief Justice of India, accountable to the common man under the Right to Information Act, saying ?sunlight is the best disinfectant? for the judiciary in a democratic society.
In a ruling that judicial independence is subject to a citizen?s right to know under the transparency law, a special three-judge Bench, led by Delhi High Court Chief Justice AP Shah, assured peers in the Supreme Court that ?well-defined and publicly known standards and procedures complement, rather than diminish, the notion of judicial independence?.
?Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of free society. Wielders of power?legislative, executive and judicial?are entrusted to perform their functions on condition that they account for their stewardship to the people who authorise them to exercise such power,? said the Bench also comprising Justices Vikramjit Sen and S Muralidhar.
With this, the court threw out the Supreme Court?s contention that a fiduciary relationship exists between Supreme Court judges and the CJI. The apex court, through attorney general GE Vahanvati, had aggressively argued that information on the assets of Supreme Court judges was held by the CJI in a personal capacity, did not come under the public domain.
?The CJI cannot be a fiduciary vis-a-vis judges of the Supreme Court. The judges of the Supreme Court hold independent office, there is no hierarchy in their judicial functions, which places them at a different plane than the CJI. The assets declarations are not furnished (by the SC judges) to the CJI in a private relationship, but in discharge of the constitutional obligation,? the Bench said.
Reminding the Supreme Court that the CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act, the Bench observed: ?Chief Justice of India besides discharging the prominent role of ?head of judiciary? also performs a multitude of tasks specifically assigned to him under the Constitution or various enactments.?
To the persistent stand from the Supreme Court that its own resolutions were not ?legally binding? but only moral in nature, the three-judge Bench told the apex court that it was better to abide by judicial values and ethics prescribed by the May 7, 1997 Full Court Resolution of the Supreme Court, which calls for the disclosure of assets, than wait for Parliament to ?compel judges to disclose their assets and undermine judicial independence?.
The court asked if an ?entry level magistrate? is bound by the 1997 resolution to annually disclose his assets, why not judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court.
?As regards accountability and independence, it cannot possibly be contended that a judicial magistrate at the entry level in the judicial hierarchy is any less accountable or independent than the judge of the high court or the Supreme Court. If the declaration of assets by a subordinate judicial officer is seen as essential to enforce accountability, the need for declaration by judges of the constitutional courts is even greater,? the Bench said.