From rxpgnews.com
File on judge's appointment to be made public
By Rana Ajit, IANS,
Mar 26, 2007 - 4:52:02 PM
New Delhi, March 26 - A path-breaking order by the Central Information Commission to make public a file on the appointment of Justice Vijender Jain as chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has left officials in the union law ministry in a tizzy.
Chief Information Commissioner - Wajahat Habibullah Friday directed the ministry's department of justice to disclose the contents of the file on the judicial appointment to a citizen, Subhash Chander Aggarwal, under the Right to Information Act -.
Law ministry officials said the department might appeal the Supreme Court against the order.
The order has given the department of justice a month's time till April 22 to disclose to Aggarwal 'all file notings and opinion of the Supreme Court Collegium's member judges on the appointment file'.
President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had returned the file for the appointment of Justice Jain to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last October. The president's queries reportedly pertained to the divided opinion of the apex court's collegium.
Besides the notings, the CIC has directed the department to disclose 'the correspondence between the president and prime minister' on the issue.
According to the CIC, the information sought by Aggarwal on the appointment was not excluded from the purview and ambit of the RTI Act.
Significantly, Habibullah's order has come in the wake of Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan's recent public disapproval to include matters concerning judicial appointments in the ambit of the RTI Act.
The justice department's Joint Secretary P.K Seth, who is also the appellate authority in the department under the provisions of the RTI Act, however, feigned ignorance about the order.
But when told the commission had passed the order on March 23, he said he would take appropriate action as per the order.
Asked if the department would challenge the order before the Supreme Court, Seth said: 'Every order is liable to a judicial review by the apex court. But the department would take a decision only after studying the order.'
Habibullah based his order on Justice P.N Bhagwati's 1982 judgement in S.P. Gupta case on the question of immunity against disclosure of correspondence between the union law minister, the chief justice of Delhi High Court and the Chief Justice of India.
The CIC extensively quoted Justice Bhagwati to say that the correspondence and communication among the president, the prime minister, law minister and judges of higher judiciary on the issue of a judicial appointment cannot be granted immunity against their disclosure.
Habibullah dismissed the usual plea of the government and the judiciary that making public correspondence and file notings relating to judicial appointments may impair judicial independence and performance and prevent judges from expressing their views frankly.
The CIC quoted Justice Bhagwati to say, 'But we do not think that the candour and frankness of these constitutional functionaries in expressing their views would be affected if they felt that the correspondence exchanged between them would be liable to be disclosed in a subsequent judicial proceedings.'
'...It would not be fair to judges to say that they are made of such weak stuff that they would hesitate to express their views with complete candour and frankness if they apprehend subsequent disclosure.'
All rights reserved by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited ( www.rxpgnews.com )