Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Sajib Nandi

Was it all for a better bargain, judges?

Recommended Posts

Sajib Nandi

Reported by Deccanherald.com on Jan 18, 2018



The current imbroglio in the Supreme Court is being falsely represented as an issue of senior judges not being given sensitive cases. It is being passed off as a problem with the roster which the Chief Justice decides. The four judges had claimed that they were discharging their duty to the nation. The nation thought that the agitation of the four judges was against arbitrariness and corruption. We have been proved wrong. It appears the public venting of anguish was only a ploy to get a better bargain and recognition as senior judges!


There is a deeper problem which is not being addressed. Citizens believed that this issue only reflected the fact that there is too much arbitrariness in the ways of our judicial functioning. But there is arbitrariness in the way the higher judiciary is selected in the first place, with India being the only country where only judges can select other judges.


There is no transparency or a logical, justifiable process. The arbitrary collegium system of judges appointing judges started in 1993. It is worth noting that this system of selecting judges was never mentioned by the Constitution or any law of Parliament. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that this was the constitutional intention! This was meekly accepted by the Executive and Parliament, but should have been questioned.


Effectively, the Supreme Court had amended the Constitution and sanctified this by its judicial order. The Parliament and 20 state assemblies passed a constitutional amendment to correct the Supreme Court's diktat in 2014, which the apex court ruled as ultra vires!


There is a reluctance in the judiciary's decisions to interpret the law as passed by Parliament or laid out in the Constitution. There is a great propensity to give different spins to many cases and justify deciding these on a "case to case basis".


With arbitrary selection of judges and a propensity to interpret laws in different ways is coupled unbridled arbitrariness in hearing and deciding cases. It is common experience that cases of a similar nature which would have been initiated in the same court may be decided even at a gap of 10 years.


Article 14 of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality before law, is violated each day in the courts of India. So also, the fundamental right to speedy justice, which the Supreme Court itself has ruled is a fundamental right of citizens.


The present issue is being touted as an issue regarding allotment of cases to certain judges. There is talk that the chief justice is not giving the seniors sensitive cases. Some attempts at reconciliation were going on amongst the "brother judges". It appears that a give-and-take reconciliation may have resolved the problem.


When the four judges said they were discharging their duty to the nation, did it mean that they were only fighting for their recognition as seniors? If that was the case, we were fooled into believing that there was a larger cause.


Shun arbitrariness


If the solution is to allocate the cases by seniority or that the collegium will decide on this, it will be a fraudulent agreement perpetrated on the nation. To claim that seniority of a few years makes judges wiser and more honest is foolish and false.


The system must recognise that all judges, including the chief justice, must be assumed to be of comparable knowledge and integrity. Hence harping on seniority, getting judges to appoint judges, arbitrarily interpreting the Constitution must stop. Arbitrariness cannot be passed off as deep wisdom.


To give one example of the ridiculous arbitrariness: the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have a right to know about the assets of those who want to become public servants.


Subsequently, in RTI cases, the same Supreme Court has ruled that citizens do not have the right to know about the assets of those who are public servants! This is like saying that if a girl and boy want to get married, they must disclose certain information about each other. But if they are already married, they need not disclose the information. There are many such instances.


The actual issue being alluded to was dishonesty and corruption, which must be addressed. Defence of arbitrariness is being passed off as a requirement for judicial independence, and maintaining the dignity of the institution!


The issue appears to be a storm in a teacup because of some egos, instead of being about saving democracy. It was reported that the issues had been resolved over a cup of tea. The people and the nation would have gained if the scourge of arbitrariness in deciding cases, hearing them, appointing judges and allotting cases amongst others had been decidedly reduced.


Alas, this dawn seems far away right now! This spring made a promise that it did not fulfil. The winter will continue and the four judges will get greater importance in the Supreme Court. We, the people, have begun to doubt the idea of idealism and a better State.



(The writer is a former Central Information Commissioner)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a dispute is endless. A lot of people simply don’t trust judges, perhaps this is right, but they act this way because of the facts that they were given.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

I never believe judiciary.  They treat common man like creatures  and deliver sermons in Court.  They do not want any law against them, considering themselves above citizens.  Let them quarrel within themselves and decide the issue, as a common man I am least bothered. (This is RTI forum and my views relate to treatment of RTI law only)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan

      Appeal No.ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006

      Right to Information Act – Sections 6/18

      Name of Appellant : Satyapal
      Name of Public Authority : CPIO, TCIL


      Decisions appealed against :
      The CPIO, TCIL has declined to supply a copy of a document on the ground that the same forms part of “file Noting” which, according to CPIO is exempt under the RTI Act. Appellate authority also has confirmed the decision of the CPIO. The appellant contents that he has the right to seek information contained in the “File Notings”.
      Shri Satyapal – appellant, a resident of Delhi, applied to the CPIO, TCIL seeking for copies of certain documents by a letter dated 17th October, 2005. By a letter dated 14th November, 2005, CPIO, TCIL furnished copies of certain documents, however, stating that a particular document sought for was a file noting in the Department of Telecom and as such it was exempt from disclosure. By a letter dated 17th Nov. 2005, Shri Satyapal again wrote to the CPIO, TCIL pointing out that the information sought for by him did not fall within the ambit of Section 8 of the RTI Act and as such the same should be supplied. He also brought to the notice of CPIO, TCIL that in respect of information already furnished, a copy of a bill in respect of advertisement relating to independence day 1996 had not been supplied. By a letter dated 28th Nov. 2005, the CPIO, TCIL while furnishing a copy of the bill, once again reiterated that file notings are exempt from disclosure in terms of the clarification given by the Department of Personnel in their website. Aggrieved by this decision, Shri Satyapaul preferred an appeal to the appellate authority by a letter dated 14th Dec. 2005 stating that file notings are not exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8 of the RTI Act. He followed up the same by letters dated 14th Dec., 31st Dec. 2005 and 5th January, 2006. The appellate authority by a letter dated 5.1.2006 rejected the appeal stating “The information sought by you pertains to the file notings of the Department of Telecommunication as also that of TCIL. I am of the view that TCIL is exempted from disclosing the information sought by you under Section 8(1)(d)&(e) of the RTI Act. UO No.7-17/95-PP dated 4.10.1995 is a part of file notings. You have mentioned in your appeal that the information has been denied misconstruing it as “file notings” by CPIO, TCIL. I confirm that these are notings in the file”. Aggrieved with the decision of the appellate authority, Shri Satyapal has filed this appeal before this Commission. According to Shri Satyapal, there is no specific exemption from disclosure as far as file notings are concerned in Section 8 of RTI Act.
      Commission’s Decision :
      It is seen that while the CPIO declined to furnish the information sought for on the ground that file notings are exempt from disclosure, the appellate authority, without confirming or rejecting the stand of CPIO that file notings are exempt from disclosure, has relied on Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act to deny the information.
      As is evident from the Preamble to the RTI Act, the Act has been enacted to vest with the citizens, the right of access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of any public authority. Conscious of the fact that access to certain information may not be in the public interest, the Act also provides certain exemptions from disclosure. Whether file notings fall within the exempted class is the issue for consideration.
      Section 2(f) defines information as “Any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinion, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law or the time being in force”.
      Section 2(j) reads : “Right to information means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of document or records; (iii) …… (iv) …. “. In terms of Section 2(i) “Record” includes (a) any documents, manuscript and file;
      In the system of functioning of public authorities, a file is opened for every subject/matter dealt with by the public authority. While the main file would contain all the materials connected with the subject/matter, generally, each file also has what is known as note sheets, separate from but attached with the main file. Most of the discussions on the subject/matter are recorded in the note sheets and decisions are mostly based on the recording in the note sheets and even the decisions are recorded on the note sheets. These recordings are generally known as “file notings”. Therefore, no file would be complete without note sheets having “file notings”. In other words, note sheets containing “file notings” are an integral part of a file. Some times, notings are made on the main file also, which obviously would be a part of the file itself. In terms of Section 2(i), a record includes a file and in terms of Section 2(j) right to information extends to accessibility to a record. Thus, a combined reading of Sections 2(f), (i)&(j) would indicate that a citizen has the right of access to a file of which the file notings are an integral part. If the legislature had intended that “file notings” are to be exempted from disclosure, while defining a “record” or “file” it could have specifically provided so. Therefore, we are of the firm view, that, in terms of the existing provisions of the RTI Act, a citizen has the right to seek information contained in “file notings” unless the same relates to matters covered under Section 8 of the Act. Thus, the reliance of the CPIO, TCILO on the web site clarification of the Department of Personnel to deny the information on the basis that ‘file notings’ are exempted, is misplaced.
      However, it is seen from the decision of the appellate authority that he was of the view that TCIL was exempted from disclosing the information sought, under Section 8(1)(d)&(e) of RTI Act. In terms of Section 8, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information relating to matters covered under subsections (a) to (j) of that Section. Section 8(d) exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property and Sub section (e) exempts information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. Even then, at the discretion of the competent authority even these information could be disclosed if he is of the opinion that public interest so warrants. From the decision of the appellate authority of TCIL, which is not a speaking one, it is not clear whether the file notings, a copy of which was denied to the appellant, relate to commercial confidence or trade secret or intellectual property or is available to TCIL in its fiduciary relationship.
      Direction :
      Since we have held that file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure, the CPIO, TCIL is directed to furnish the information contained in the file notings, on or before 15.2.2006 to the appellant. However, if the CPIO, TCIL is still of the opinion that the said file notings are exempt under Section 8(d) & (e), he is at liberty to place the file notings before the Commission on 13.2.2006 at 11 AM to determine whether the same is exempt under these sections and even if so, whether disclosure of the same would be in the public interest or not.
      Let a copy of this decision be sent to CPIO, TCIL and the appellant.


      (Padma Balasubramanian)

      Information Commissioner


      (Wajahat Habibullah)

      Chief Information Commissioner


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy