Opinion | Open to scrutiny
Maintaining the higher judiciary’s privacy was perhaps seen as advisable to shield it from external influence
It isn’t often that a constitutional authority offers transparency in its own functioning. Yet, that’s what the Supreme Court has done. It has ruled that the Chief Justice of India’s office is a public authority, and thus within the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This is laudable, as it opens the country’s top judicial office to public scrutiny, in a way.
The broad argument against the move was that it would hamper judicial independence. Maintaining the higher judiciary’s privacy was perhaps seen as advisable to shield it from external influence. Too much exposure tends to invite public discussion, which need not always be good for judicial processes, since people are not always adequately acquainted with the finer points of law. But the top court has held that the judiciary cannot stay entirely insulated; what judges do is a public duty. The spirit of the RTI has been upheld here. The top court has shown that principles are more important than individuals or institutions; and that the law must apply equally to all. Hopefully, this will set a precedent for a few other organs of the state to give up some secrecy. Some things need to be classified. But not all.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!