Political News: Will the political parties also come within the RTI after the Chief Justice's office?

Credit: Factly
Political News: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India will now be accountable to the people under the Right to Information Act.

The most important thing in this decision, given on November 13, 2019, was that it was said that judicial independence and accountability should be taken together. The court has held that openness and transparency are essential for an independent judiciary.

The RTI laws, which were implemented in 2005, include the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. With the help of this law, ordinary citizens can ask questions to those sitting in government posts.

Every year, more than 60 lakh RTI applications are filled from all over the country. These applicants ask about things like the way the government works, information on government schemes. With the help of this law, people have raised questions about the functioning of the government sitting in power and in many cases have also exposed corruption and abuse of power.

That is why many institutions have been defending themselves from falling under the purview of this law. However, before the RTI Act came into force, the Supreme Court declared it a fundamental right of citizens. But the Supreme Court itself has been hesitant to share information under the law.
Credit: The India Forum
RTI occurred in three cases
On three separate occasions, the Central Information Commission (CIC) was directed to convey information to the Supreme Court's Public Information Officer (PIO). Eventually, the matter reached the Constitutional Bench.

One of these cases was based on information related to the appointment of judges. In 2009, an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. In this regard, information was sought regarding the appointment of Justice HL Dattu, Justice AK Ganguly and Justice RM Lodha as the Supreme Court Judge.

The appellant sought a copy of the conversation between the then Chief Justice and other constitutional authorities during these appointments. The three judges were removed from seniority order and were appointed in the Supreme Court before Justice AP Shah, Justice A Patanayake and Justice V K Gupta.

In another case, an RTI was filed, citing a media report. It accused a Union minister of interfering with the decisions of the High Court. The appellant had sought a copy of the conversation between the CGI and the Madras High Court judge in this case.

In the third case, information regarding the property of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court was sought.