| Font Size |
On November 2, Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and his judges, one of them retired, posted details of movable and immovable properties owned by them and their spouses on the website.
The court is of the opinion that the SC judges may have even overreacted by revealing their spouses’ wealth though the 1997 Resolution of the Supreme Court expressly demands it. “What if the wife has her own business and is wealthy? Does it mean she has to declare her assets, income tax returns, etc?” the Bench said. “With great humility we notice an aberration in the Resolution. It is as if after marriage the wife is holding on to the husband’s property,” the Bench noted.
The Bench is hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court against a “too broad and slightly unnecessary” — as Attorney General of India G E Vahanvati puts it — verdict of Justice S Ravindra Bhatt of the High Court, directing the SC judges to make public their assets under the RTI.
The sweep of the RTI Act, 2005 seemed to shrink in the courtroom when Chief Justice Shah asked the AG, who appeared for the SC, what was “so complicated” about the issue of declaration of judges’ assets under the RTI.
“Earlier, the information on assets declarations was with the Chief Justice of India, held in confidentiality. Now, after they have been posted it on the website, there is nothing more to declare. There is no need to even put in an RTI application — the information is open to all. What is so complicated about all this? ... RTI cannot ask further,” the Chief Justice said. As per the RTI Act, a public authority is only liable to give information available with it, that too, if the disclosure of the information is in public interest. To this, Vahanvati simply said: “I am happy.”
However, Justice Muralidhar, seemed dissatisfied. “But what if there is more to declare (by the judges)?” he asked Vahanvati. He continued: “We talk of ourselves, the judiciary, as a self-regulating and self-correcting body. The 1997 Resolution identifies certain values like declaration of assets. So when members of the judiciary identify certain values, isn’t it enough to make it binding?” At this point, the Attorney General clarified that though he strongly believes in RTI, he sincerely believes in protection of judges.
Discuss this story on expressindia forums
|
|
100 Percent Transparency for Assets and the wealth if they are to be so called JUDGE at any level.
Is the whole issue an excercise in futility?There should be a more comprehensive legislation on decleration of assets by judges.Let an put an end to this farce exercise.Enough is not enough,so far, in this case.Much more in the form of decleration is needed from judges by way of declaration of assets and wealth-these two are different terms.
Sir, the issue of declaring the assets of the supreme court judges has became a national debate. If we go by the majority opinion, we would find that the judges should disclose their assets and finally in the SC web site, the judges including the chief justice disclosed their assets. But the controversy still remains as the judiciary does want to come within the perview of the RTI act and the judge ment of the Single judge of Delhi high justifing the directon of CIC that the office of the chief justice, india comes under the RTI act, is challanged by the judges of supreme court in a larger bench and finally it is held that the judges`are to disclose their assets not more than the ressolution passed by the apex court in 1997 and vitually the order of the CIC and the judgement of the single judge are overruled.The point is if this judgement is challanged before the supreme court then whether the supreme court is competent to decide the issue where the judges are parties.