By Rana Ajit, IANS,
New Delhi : The year 2009 is set to be remembered as one that pitted the Supreme Court against the forces of transparency and left it contending with an ever-growing demand for accountability in the judiciary.
For the first time, the Supreme Court had to make its judges declare their assets, while the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is contending with a demand to disclose documents related to appointments of judges in the higher judiciary — the apex court and the various state high courts.
Plus, there were charges of corruption against the higher judiciary, one serious enough to stall the elevation of Karnataka High Court’s Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran to the apex court.
The forces of transparency gathered strength on Jan 6 this year when the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed disclosure of the assets.
The apex court moved the Delhi High Court challenging the CIC verdict, but the high court on Sep 2 upheld the CIC verdict, which had also held that the office of the CJI fell within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and all the information it had could be shared with the public.
In an interaction with reporters Aug 28, four days before the high court was to give its verdict, CJI K.G. Balakrishnan said: “The office of the chief justice is privy to so much privileged communication between various constitutional authorities, complaints against judges etc. How can all this information be disclosed?”
But the high court ruled in favour of transparency. The apex court then moved a division bench to examine afresh if the CJI office falls within the purview of the RTI Act.
Before the high court could decide the issue, acting on another plea for information under the RTI Act, the CIC directed the CJI’s office to make public various documents related to some recent appointments of judges at the apex court.
This time, the Supreme Court itself sat in appeal against the CIC ruling. It also asked the government to amend the RTI Act, so that the office of the CJI is kept out of its ambit.
So much for the transparency battle. On the accountability front, apart from the Karnataka chief justice being foiled in his attempt to move to the Supreme Court, there was another serious allegation.
Senior Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan threw the charge of “doubtful integrity” at the apex court’s second seniormost judge S.H. Kapadia, while maintaining that it was not the same as being corrupt.
The advocate has cast aspersions on the judge for hearing a corporate dispute, despite having shares in one of the business firms, Sterlite Industries, involved in the battle and for granting questionable relief to the firm.
The charge may become one of the most contentious issues in the higher judiciary next year.
(Rana Ajit can be contacted at [email protected])