• My regards for your editorial suggestion to the Indian Judiciary “to balance the distortions” that creep into politics (‘Towards disclosure’). Your words were guarded, restrained and dignified. Since I have spent the last 66 years of my life either as an advocate or a judge, I believe that I can be more assertive on the subject.

The Indian Constitution rightly safeguards judicial independence so that judges can discharge their duty objectively. Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution invest vast judicial powers in the hands of Supreme Court and high court judges, which sometimes enable them to control all important aspects of the administration for safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens. This makes the judiciary the most important organ of the state and also our ultimate chance of making corrections or balancing the distortions.

It is, however, important to note that all the safe-guards and immunities given to the judiciary relate to the discharge of judicial functions and not administrative ones. The law recognizes this because it doesn’t amount to contempt of court if the administrative functions discharged by the judiciary are criticized or legally challenged. Every Indian citizen is entitled to know as to how judicial appointments are made, how the revenue meant for judicial administration is utilized, how arrears of disputed cases are accumulated and what steps are taken to clear them, etc.

It may be noted that the Right to Information Act doesn’t exempt (and rightfully so) the Supreme Court or the high courts from disclosing such administrative facts to enlighten the citizens who are the ultimate masters of this land and with whose money the administration runs. It should also be noted that the function of the RTI Act is merely to disclose facts, not to monitor or guide any department of the state. In a democracy, all organs of the state, including the judiciary, function subject to the provisions of the relevant law.

... contd.