Does RTI transgress Privacy Act? An analysis after Wednesday’s Supreme Court verdict

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) comes under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The reason is obvious; the office of the CJI is a public authority and hence it comes under the RTI. "Transparency does not undermine judicial independence," Justice Sanjiv Khanna said. The five-judge Constitution bench was headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gagoi. The other members of the bench were Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Deepak Gupta.

Earlier, in 2010, in a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court had held that the office of the CJI comes within the ambit of RTI. The Delhi High Court observed that judicial independence was not a judge's privilege, but a responsibility cast upon him. The then CJI KG Balakrishnan had earlier opposed the disclosure of information relating to judges under the RTI. This was initiated by one RTI activist SC Agarwal and was represented by his lawyer Prashant Bhushan. This was argued well by the lawyer for his client SC Agarwal. During the argument stage, the lawyer had highlighted the reluctance of the judiciary in sharing the information or coming under the RTI. Judicial independence was not a privilege but a responsibility cast on judiciary. The lawyer had also accused the judiciary of reluctance to share the information with the public. Prashant Bhushan was successful in getting a favourable order from the Delhi High Court much to the chagrin of the then Chief Justice of India.

The judgment from the Delhi High Court was appealed in the Supreme Court in 2010. The Supreme Court secretary general and its central public information officer had taken it to the apex court. The bench headed by the CJI heard the appeal and had expressed that it does not want opaqueness and wants transparency in the system. Justice Sanjiv Khanna read that it is in the best interest of the public that transparency should be there in the CJI office. The judicial independence will not be under threat if there is any transparency.