The Commission explained that it was the responsibility of the CJI and Chief Justices of high courts to embrace and enforce transparency in their high offices in accordance with the “unique status and position” the RTI Act gave them.

“The Chief Justice of India... and the Chief Justices of High Courts are designated as ‘competent authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the RTI Act and Section 28 of the RTI Act empowers them to frame rules to carry out provisions of the Act,” the CIC said.

“This rule-making power,” it noted, “is explicitly given for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the RTI Act. The Act, therefore, empowers the Supreme Court and the other competent authorities under the Act and entrusts upon them an additional responsibility of ensuring that the RTI Act is implemented in letter and spirit.

“In view of this additional responsibility, the contention that provisions of RTI Act are not applicable in case of Supreme Court cannot be accepted.”

The Bench held that declaration of assets by judges cannot be classified as “personal information” of which the serving CJI was sole custodian in a personal capacity.

“The information is maintained in a confidential manner and like any other official information is available for perusal and inspection to every succeeding Chief Justice of India. It, therefore, cannot be categorised as “personal information” available with the Chief Justices in their personal capacity,” the Bench said.

The Supreme Court Registry had taken the line that the CJI’s office was a “separate” entity and not part of the “institution called the Supreme Court of India” to argue that the applicant in the case had knocked on the wrong door for information on declaration of assets by judges.

... contd.