Right to Information (RTI): India

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry, deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries. Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings; and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch. See examples and a tutorial.

Income tax details of judges

CIC: SC can’t give I-T details of judges

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

New Delhi: In a rare instance, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has agreed with the Supreme Court and said that its registry could not be asked under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to provide details of the income tax returns filed by its judges.

In earlier instances — be it declaration of assets by the judges or revealing the details of the collegium meeting process for appointment of judges — the CIC’s ruling advocating transparency had been challenged by the apex court first before the Delhi high court and then before the Supreme Court.

But, on the income tax return details of the judges, the CIC saw reason to agree with the SC’s response to an RTI query and agreed with its counsel Devdatt Kamat that the registry did not have the details of the information sought by RTI applicant Dr Lal Bahadur.

Chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, in a five-page decision, said: “It should be clear that it is not the Supreme Court that would hold information on the income tax returns of the high court judges even at the time of their elevation as Supreme Court judges, coming as they are, from different states in the country.”

“Application will then have to be made to the department of revenue, ministry of finance, that administers income tax for all,” Habibullah said.

The original RTI application was filed by Dr Bahadur before the Supreme Court, which routed it to the ministry of law and justice. The ministry returned it to the apex court and tersely said: “Perhaps the Supreme Court of India could be in a better position to furnish the information, as sought by the RTI application.”

RTI Act does not apply to judgments

SC: RTI Act doesn’t apply to judgments

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

New Delhi: Can a judge be asked under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as to why and how he came to a particular conclusion in a judgment?

No, says the Supreme Court. The apex court saw the mischief potential of queries under the RTI Act in relation to a judge and his judgments and a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice B S Chauhan firmly said that a judge speaks through his judgments and he could not be made to answer questions relating to his verdict in a case.

“A judge speaks through his judgments and he is not answerable to anyone as to why he wrote a judgment in a particular manner,” the Bench said dismissing an appeal filed by one Khanapuram Gandaiah, who had not even challenged the verdict in his case before an appellate forum.

What he asked using an RTI query was why the judge concerned did not consider parts of his submissions, parts of the voluminous documents while additionally putting questions about other aspects of the judgment against him.

Terming all these grievances as valid grounds for filing an appeal, which Gandaiah did not, the Bench minced no words in criticising the appellant for resorting to the RTI Act rather than seeking remedy before higher courts. Gandaiah had made an appliaction under Section 6 of RTI Act, which provides that any information possessed by a public authority under the Act has to be given to an applicant on such a request made either electronically or in writing. The District Judge had rejected his RTI plea.

The Bench agreed with the rejection of his plea seeking information about the judgment under the RTI Act and said: “A judge can only speak through his judgments and he cannot be made to go on explaining why he took a particular view in a judgment.”

“Moreover, as the judge has given his views in the judgment, he cannot give any other reason for his judgment, RTI Act query or otherwise. No party has a right to ask the judge concerned through RTI about the judgment,” the Bench said dismissing Gandaiah’s appeal.