Hyderabad: Before retiring on November 17, CJI Ranjan Gogoi will deliver his judgement on Wednesday whether the Supreme Court and the office of the CJI can be regarded as ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will pronounce the judgement at 2 pm. Other members of the bench are Justices N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna.
The notice regarding the pronouncement of the judgement was made public on the apex court's official website on Tuesday afternoon.
This case has been pending for over a decade since Justice Ravindra Bhat of the Delhi High Court ruled that the CJI’s office would be open to RTI scrutiny.
Before getting into the details of the case, it is important to look back at the genesis and evolution of this significant Act which has contributed immensely towards a more accountable and transparent government.
What is RTI?
The RTI Act was passed by Parliament on June 15, 2005, and came into force on October 13, 2005.
The law seeks to set out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
It replaces the erstwhile Freedom of information Act, 2002.
In the first ten years of the commencement of the act over 17,500,000 applications had been filed.
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was instrumental in the passage of the RTI Act.
Social activist Aruna Roy was at the forefront of the movement to persuade Parliament to enact the original law
In several of its judgments, the Supreme Court has upheld RTI as a fundamental right, flowing from Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
What does it do?
The law provides a mechanism to ensure that information is given in a time-bound manner and imposes a penalty for willful default by government officials.
It provides transparency guidelines for the government’s functioning through suo moto disclosure.
It requires the appointment of a public information officer, from the panchayat level to the Prime Minister’s Office.
Where does the Act stand post amendments?
On July 25, 2019, the Parliament passed the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which empowers the government to decide salary and service terms of the statutory body head and its members, including the chief information commissioners and the information commissioners.
This, in a political sense, means that the government can threaten or lure the chief information commissioner and information commissioners with arbitrary removal or extension and curtailment or increase in salary depending upon their suitability for the ruling dispensation.
Also read: CJI Gogoi recommends Justice Bobde as successor
What comes under its purview?
Citizens can ask for anything that the government can disclose to Parliament.
What doesn’t?
Information that can prejudicially impact internal security, relations with foreign countries, intellectual property rights, breach of parliamentary privilege and impedes investigations cannot be shared with the public.
Cabinet papers are exempt until a decision has been implemented. However, discussions within the Cabinet can never be disclosed.
Then why is Supreme Court exempted from RTI?
In November 2009, the Central Information Commission (CIC) ordered the Supreme Court of India to disclose information regarding the Collegium's decision making.
The CIC order pertains to a Right to Information request made by activist Suresh Chandra Agarwal.
Agarwal had filed an RTI requesting complete correspondence exchanged between the Supreme Court and the Centre on the appointment of Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice A.K. Ganguly and Justice R.M. Lodha, superseding the seniority of Justice A.P. Shah, Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice V.K. Gupta. Justices Dattu and Lodha went on to become Chief Justices of India.
The Supreme Court appealed the November 2009 CIC order to itself.
On 4 December 2009, the Supreme Court stayed the CIC order.
On 26 November 2010, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench led by now-retired Justice B Sudershan Reddy referred the matter to a three-judge Bench, instead of staying the CIC order.
Also read: 10 sittings, six crucial verdicts for CJI Gogoi before retirement
Justice BS Reddy framed several questions for the larger Bench to answer, including:
- Would disclosing the information requested by Suresh Chandra Agarwal interfere with the independence of the judiciary? Is it therefore not in the public interest to disclose this information?
- Would disclosing the information requested erode (i) the credibility of the Collegium's decision and/or (ii) curtail the future "free and frank expression" of Collegium members when appointing judges to the Supreme Court?
- Does Section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act, exempt the CPIO from providing the requested information? Section 8(i)(j) exempts the disclosure of "personal information" that has "no relationship to any public activity or interest".
On August 17, 2018, a three-judge Bench comprising now CJI Ranjan Gogoi, retired Justice Prafulla C Pant and Justice AM Khanwilkar referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench. They held that the matter involved constitutional questions relating to the separation of powers (independence of the judiciary) and the right to privacy.
On 4th April 2019, the Constitution Bench reserved judgement.
Earlier, on February 15, 2019, the Supreme Court lauded the role of the RTI Act as an “integral part of any vibrant democracy.”
Also read: TN Woman rider hit by truck while trying to avoid AIADMK flagpole
But, the court has firmly resisted back-to-back decisions of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Delhi High Court to open up to the RTI regime as far as the issues of Collegium and judicial appointments are concerned.
If the Constitution Bench eventually upholds the CIC order, the ordinary citizen would be empowered to seek details of judicial appointments and transfers from the Chief Justice of India under RTI, thus opening a judicial Pandora’s Box.
