The Supreme Court on Thursday opposed the idea of making public under the RTI Act information pertaining to appointment and transfer of judges, saying that it would adversely impact the independence of the judiciary.
Challenging various orders of the Delhi high court and the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the Apex court to reveal information held by the Chief Justice of India, Attorney General G E Vahanvati, appearing for the Supreme Court, contended that all information held by the CJI cannot be made public.
He pleaded that these are very important issues and a Constitution bench of the court should decide them.
"Principles of the independence of the judiciary have to be kept in mind while deciding these issues," he said, adding that there are various judgments of the Supreme Court that have said that the conduct of the judges, including appointment issues, cannot be discussed in public.
He further submitted that a larger bench should deal with the RTI act issue keeping in mind the important constitutional provisions which refer to the independence of the judiciary.
However, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the RTI applicant, who has sought information under the transparency law, submitted that several eminent jurist and former judges, including Justice V R Krishna Iyer, have criticised the way in which judicial appointments are made now-a-days and said that it is high time that the process of appointment of judges be brought under public scrutiny.
A bench comprising Justices B S Reddy and S S Nijjar reserved its order on whether the case should be referred to a larger bench.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court Registry challenging the directions of the CIC to disclose information on judges' appointments to the apex court in cases involving superseding of seniors. It was filed on December one.
The apex court had also put on hold the operation of the CIC order directing it to divulge communication between Chief Justice of India (K G Balakrishnan) and Justice R Raghupathy of Madras High Court on alleged interference by a Union minister in a sub-judice matter.
The CIC, in a series of orders, has held that office of the CJI comes within the purview of the RTI Act and information held by the Chief Justice should be revealed. However, Balakrishnan, who retired in May this year, had consistently been maintaining that his office does not come under the ambit of the Act.
The Registry has assailed the CIC's order contending that the material (information) held by the CJI was kept under fiduciary relationship and should be exempted from being made public under Section 8(1)e of the transparency law.
Interestingly, deviating from the normal practice, which was adopted by it in an earlier case on the assets declaration issue, the apex court this time sidelined the Delhi high court where appeals against the CIC's order were filed, by moving a petition before itself.
The same legal issue on whether CJI's office comes within the ambit of RTI or not is pending before a full bench of the Delhi high court after a single judge had rejected the apex court's plea that all the information with the CJI cannot be revealed under RTI.
