Here are the latest RTI query from activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal and the reply from the Supreme Court. Also, it is now clear from Supreme Court’s reply to another RTI applicant, Deepak Khosla, that the CJI himself directed the SC Registry to challenge Justice Ravindra Bhat’s judgment in the assets disclosure case in Delhi High Court. Is not the CJI himself contradicting his position that his office is different from that of the Registry? Supreme Court has refused to answer Khosla’s other queries about decision making of CJI and the Judges in this case, and in the case of non-elevation of Justice Shah (which is now before the Supreme Court itself as an appeal against the CIC’s decision) saying it had no information. The Supreme Court has further replied to Khosla that it has not yet appealed against the January 12 Full Court judgment of Delhi High Court in the assets declaration case.
Supreme Court & RTI – the continuing saga
Further reading
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
It is ironic that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is keen to undermine the same right to information which it had held to be a fundamental right long back. The unfortunate part is that despite the fact that nobody appears to be supporting the stand of the Supreme Court in this regard except the court itself, it continues to believe that its stand can somehow be defended against the strong public opinion. Principles of transparency, requirements of giving detailed reasons for arriving at a decision and making them open for scrutiny by the parties concerned, and so many other relevant and precious principles of law, laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time, appear to be applicable only to others and not to the Supreme Court itself. It is a sorry state of affairs that the Supreme Court is not able to read the strength and intensity of the public opinion in this regard and continues to take a legally unsustainable stand.
On 8th March 2010, it was reported that the Supreme Court had filed an appeal before itself challenging the Delhi High Court judgement holding that the office of the CJI came under the ambit of the RTI Act and was liable to reveal information under it. The question is how can the Apex Court be a judge in its own cause. Does it not violate the principle of Nemo iudex in causa sua?