RTI covers office of Chief Justice of India: High court

New Delhi, Jan 12 (IANS) The Delhi High Court Tuesday upheld its single bench order that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) comes within the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and details of judges assets should be revealed under that.

A bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justices S. Muralidhar and Vikramjeet Sen said: "The subordinate judiciary is already declaring their assets. So when they are accountable so are we. Thus, higher the judiciary, higher is the accountability towards the public at large."	 	
During the pronouncement of the judgement, the judges assured that they too would declare their assets next week.	 	
Emphasising the importance of RTI, the bench said: "RTI has over-reaching impact. Citizens who require such information should not misuse the information, thus saving the independence of (the) judiciary." 	 	
"Income tax returns and medical records will not be revealed under the RTI but if public interest is attached with it then it also needs to be disclosed," the bench said in a voluminous judgement.	 	
Two resolutions in 1997 and 1999 had said this declaration of assets was not binding on judges but could be done voluntarily.	 	
Regarding them, the court said: "This resolution is made for accountability of judges and we should all follow the same."	 	
The bench had reserved its order in November 2009. 	 	
Attorney General Goolam E. Vahanvati, appearing for the apex court registry, had contended that the resolution regarding declaration of assets by judges was non-statutory, non-binding and it could not force a judge to declare assets to the Chief Justice of India. 	 	
The attorney general said the high court single-judge bench had erred in declaring that the office of CJI comes within the ambit of the RTI Act and had interpreted the provisions of the legislation too broadly, which was "unnecessary" and "illogical". 	 	
The high court in its Sep 2, 2009 verdict on the controversial issue held that the CJI was a public authority and his office came within the purview of the transparency law. 	 	
The judgement was contrary to the stand taken by CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, who has consistently maintained that his office is beyond the purview of the RTI law.