Many view the judiciary with awe. Yet some believe that it is like any other segment of society which is getting soiled by the day. When a former chief justice of India said that 15 per cent of the judges were corrupt, it confirmed the public’s worst fears.
Since then, the judicial stock has plunged further. So much so that there was hardly any notice taken of the outgoing Punjab governor naming a particular judge in connection with accepting a bribe of Rs16 lakh.
When the government claims to be transparent, why should the chief justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan feel shy about being open? -File Photo
Indeed, people were horrified when the chief justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan said that his office was above the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) act. He has, however, climbed down after the judgment by the Delhi high court that said “Democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of free society.”
It rejected the plea of the chief justice to keep his office beyond the pale of the RTI act because he was a repository of “sensitive information”. This is not a correct stand. If the prime minister’s office is answerable under the RTI, why shouldn’t the office of chief justice of India? It could not be dealing with matters more delicate than those by the prime minister’s office.
It would have raised the prestige of the chief justice had he had accepted the high court’s judgment. His reference to the high court was appreciated. He gave the impression that he was referring the matter to a third party to decide whether the RTI was applicable to him. But his reported decision to take the appeal to the full bench of the supreme court or to the five-judge collegiums over which he would preside makes a mockery of the reference.
Look at it from another angle. Would the chief justice of India have allowed an appeal had the Delhi high court upheld that his office was above the RTI? I mean no disrespect when I remind him that not only Caesar but even his wife had to be above doubt. He acted like a person whose pride had been hurt. Yet he could not bypass the high court’s observation: “The accountability of the judiciary could not be seen in isolation” and “the chief justice’s office must be answerable to the people in ways that [are] transparent.”
When the government claims to be transparent, why should the chief justice feel shy about openness? There is a law which binds the government to give information regarding its decisions. This is how a democratic government should function. Therefore, the chief justice cannot shut the door on the right to know. This will put a question mark against the process of transparency.
The Supreme Court has itself said in a judgment that a voter has the right to information about contesting candidates. In the Union of India versus People’s Union for Civil Liberties case, the court has said: “For maintaining purity of elections and a healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates.
Such information would include assets held by the candidate, his qualification including educational qualification and antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a criminal case and if the case is decided — its result, if pending — whether charge has been framed or cognizance has been taken by the court. There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters.”
Chief Justice Balakrishnan has thrown another brick by saying that the allegations against the Karnataka high court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran were raised after his name was suggested for elevation to the supreme court. At a time when the Rajya Sabha has admitted a motion of impeachment against Justice Dinakaran and the vice president, the chairman of the house, has appointed a committee to probe the charges, Chief Justice Balakrishnan’s observation smacks of partiality.
The allegations against Justice Dinakaran have been endorsed by 75 MPs. The charges relate to securing five housing board plots in the name of his wife and two daughters, entering into benami transactions and acquiring agricultural buildings beyond the ceiling limit. The fact that these allegations were not made earlier in Justice Dinakaran’s career does not mean that they are incorrect. The committee is yet to go into the charges. Discretion should have marked the stance of the chief justice of India before he stood in favour of Justice Dinakaran.
The government’s proposal to have a law to check tainted persons from becoming members of the higher judiciary is a welcome step. But how will the government do so when the collegiums of the Supreme Court judges are the final authority? Justice Dinakaran was recommended for elevation by the collegiums over which Chief Justice Balakrishnan presided. The government has to handle the situation delicately and adroitly. Otherwise, the judiciary and the executive can be at loggerheads. Both constitute pillars of the democratic structure. A crack in either can harm the structure itself.
My feeling is that even the executive does not want to part with any information, new or old. The cabinet secretary’s reported order to offices to weed out all old files is too good to be true. The government has not yet disclosed papers even relating to the transfer of power in August 1947.
I have the experience of bureaucrats covering up mistakes committed even 45 years ago in “public interest”. I had asked for the disclosure of Henderson Brooks’ report on India’s rout at the hands of China in 1962. The defence ministry said that making the report public would harm the “public interest”. My hunch is that the report has put the blame on Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for provoking the war against China. The Indian government does not want to admit this.
Author: Kuldip Nayar
