New Delhi, Mar 8, DH News Service:
The Supreme Court will file an appeal before itself next week challenging a Delhi High Court judgement declaring the office of the Chief Justice of India(CJI) within the ambit of the Right to Information Act (RTI).
The two-month deadline to challenge the high court judgement will expire on March 12, and the Supreme Court registry will have to file an appeal before that date, an official source said on Sunday. The appeal seeks an immediate stay on the high court judgment on the ground that the correspondence between the CJI and members of higher judiciary could not be sought under the RTI Act, sources said.
Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan desisted from holding a full court to discuss the issue as some jurists and constitutional experts had asked if all the apex court judges are party to the decision to challenge the high court order, then who will preside over the bench to hear the appeal.
Sources said the CJI consulted a few judges before deciding to file an appeal.
Advocate Devdutt Kamat will file the appeal and Attorney General G E Vahanvati will appear on behalf of the registry to argue the case.
On January 12, while upholding a single bench order, a division bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that the office of the CJI comes within the ambit of the RTI Act, and that judicial independence was not a judge’s privilege but a responsibility cast upon him.
The bench of Chief Justice (now retired) Ajit Prakash Shah, Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice S Muralidhar dismissed an appeal filed by the Supreme Court registry, maintaining that judicial accountability could not be seen in isolation.
Subsequently, on January 13, Justice Balakrishnan said a full court of the Supreme Court would decide whether to challenge this decision. The decision to challenge the single bench order on September 2, 2009, before a division bench was also taken by a full bench of the Supreme Court.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Carter Center Releases African Regional Plan of Action to Advance the Right of Access to Information
Participants from the African Regional Conference on the Right of Access to Information have released the Regional Findings and Plan of Action to advance the right of access to information in Africa. The conference, which took place in Accra, Ghana, from February 7-9, examined the specific the political and institutional constraints in Africa that have limited the opportunities to exercise the right to know.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Income tax returns, medical records not under RTI: Court
NEW DELHI - The Delhi High Court Tuesday ruled that income tax returns and medical records do not fall under the purview of Right To Information (RTI) Act “unless public interest is attached” holding in its landmark judgment that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) came under the ambit of the transparency law.
Quoting an American writer that “one man’s freedom of information is another man’s invasion of privacy”, a full bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justices S. Muralidhar and Vikramjit Sen said: “Personal information including tax returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the act.”
“If, however, the applicant can show sufficient public interest in disclosure, the bar (preventing disclosure) is lifted and after duly notifying the third party (the individual concerned with the information or whose records are sought) and after considering his views, the authority can disclose it,” they said.
Highlighting how the right to information often clashes with the right to privacy, the court noted that the government stores a lot of information about individuals, supplied by the individuals themselves in applications made for obtaining various licences, permissions including passports, or through disclosures such as income tax returns or for census data.
“When an applicant seeks access to government records containing personal information concerning identifiable individuals, it is obvious that these two rights are capable of generating conflict,” the court said, adding that “in some cases, this will involve disclosure of information pertaining to public officials. In others, it will involve disclosure of information concerning ordinary citizens. In each instance, the subject of the information can plausibly raise a privacy protection concern.”
However, the court ruled that notes made by the judges do not come under the RTI act, the court said the notes taken by judges while hearing a case cannot be treated as final views expressed by them on the case. “They are meant only for the use of the judges and cannot be held to be a part of a record ‘held’ by the public authority. However, if the judge turns in notes along with the rest of his files to be maintained as a part of the record, the same may be disclosed.”
Maintaining that the right to information may not always have a linkage with the freedom of speech, the court said: “If a citizen gets information, certainly his capacity to speak will be enhanced.”
“But many a time, he needs information which may have nothing to do with his desire to speak. He may wish to know how an administrative authority has used its discretionary powers. He may need information as to whom the petrol pumps have been allotted. The right to information is required to make the exercise of discretionary powers by the executive transparent and, therefore, accountable because such transparency will act as a deterrent against unequal treatment,” the court said.
http://blog.taragana.com/law/2010/01/12/income-tax-returns-medical-records-not-under-rti-court-19501/
Quoting an American writer that “one man’s freedom of information is another man’s invasion of privacy”, a full bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justices S. Muralidhar and Vikramjit Sen said: “Personal information including tax returns, medical records etc. cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the act.”
“If, however, the applicant can show sufficient public interest in disclosure, the bar (preventing disclosure) is lifted and after duly notifying the third party (the individual concerned with the information or whose records are sought) and after considering his views, the authority can disclose it,” they said.
Highlighting how the right to information often clashes with the right to privacy, the court noted that the government stores a lot of information about individuals, supplied by the individuals themselves in applications made for obtaining various licences, permissions including passports, or through disclosures such as income tax returns or for census data.
“When an applicant seeks access to government records containing personal information concerning identifiable individuals, it is obvious that these two rights are capable of generating conflict,” the court said, adding that “in some cases, this will involve disclosure of information pertaining to public officials. In others, it will involve disclosure of information concerning ordinary citizens. In each instance, the subject of the information can plausibly raise a privacy protection concern.”
However, the court ruled that notes made by the judges do not come under the RTI act, the court said the notes taken by judges while hearing a case cannot be treated as final views expressed by them on the case. “They are meant only for the use of the judges and cannot be held to be a part of a record ‘held’ by the public authority. However, if the judge turns in notes along with the rest of his files to be maintained as a part of the record, the same may be disclosed.”
Maintaining that the right to information may not always have a linkage with the freedom of speech, the court said: “If a citizen gets information, certainly his capacity to speak will be enhanced.”
“But many a time, he needs information which may have nothing to do with his desire to speak. He may wish to know how an administrative authority has used its discretionary powers. He may need information as to whom the petrol pumps have been allotted. The right to information is required to make the exercise of discretionary powers by the executive transparent and, therefore, accountable because such transparency will act as a deterrent against unequal treatment,” the court said.
http://blog.taragana.com/law/2010/01/12/income-tax-returns-medical-records-not-under-rti-court-19501/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
