By IANS,
New Delhi : Should documents relating to judicial appointments be made public? The Supreme Court Monday asked high courts across the country for their stand on the issue of transparency in judicial appointments.
A bench of Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Justice S.S. Nijjar sought the stand of the high courts while making them party for their say on a lawsuit – filed by the apex court’s registry.
The lawsuit challenges a Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order that asked the court registry to make public various documents on last year’s appointment of three Supreme Court judges after superseding senior chief justices of high courts.
The bench asked the high courts to file their reply on the issue within four weeks and adjourned the matter till then.
The bench earlier on Dec 4 last year suspended a part of the CIC’s Nov 25 order which had ruled that the appointment of judges is a “public activity” which cannot be concealed.
“The recommendation of appointment of justices is decidedly a public activity conducted in the overriding public interest. However, the plea of seeking exemption under the definition of fiduciary relationship cannot stand, and even if accepted in technical terms, will not withstand the test of public interest,” the CIC had said, while directing the apex court’s registry to provide information within 15 days.
Deviating from the normal practice, the Supreme Court challenged the CIC ruling directly before itself, instead of taking the usual route of first going to the high court against the right to information panel’s ruling.
The CIC had given the ruling on a lawsuit by transparency activist Subhash Chandra Aggrawal.
Appearing for Aggarwal, advocate Prashant Bhushan told the apex court to accede to the CIC’s ruling on judicial appointment.
He argued that a 1993 ruling on judicial appointment by a seven-judge bench in the S.P. Gupta case had also elaborately dealt with various issues related to transparency in judicial appointment.
He said that directions and observations by the apex court in the S.P. Gupta ruling provided for complete transparency in judicial appointments in higher judiciary.
Counsel said unless the ruling by the seven-judge bench is set aside by a larger constitutional bench of nine judges, the apex court need not challenge the CIC ruling.
Appearing for the apex court’s registry, Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati contended that the ruling in the S.P. Gupta case is not applicable to the present case of judicial transparency.
On his suggestion, the apex court eventually issued notices to various high courts for their stands on the matter and adjourned the hearing for four weeks.