Scroll.
in: Madras: Monday, 29 September 2014.
A Madras High
Court judgement last fortnight setting aside an order of the Central
Information Commission and granting sanctity to the actions of one of its
Public Information Officers is an example of the judiciary commitment to the
principle of transparency in administration just as long as it applies only
to the other organs of the state.
On January 23
last year, the Central Information Commission heard the appeal of an aggrieved
RTI applicant whose requests for information had been turned down by the High
Court's Public Information Officer. The applicant’s query related to the
selection procedure for appointing the Registrar General, and the action taken,
if any, on complaints against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.
The applicant
had been persistent. He knocked the doors of the high court 47 times,
undeterred by every refusal.
The State
Information Commission found no fault with the High Court officials' actions,
and instead castigated the applicant for his "offensive and intimidatory
acts", which were "calculated to bring embarrassment and
ridicule" to the institution of the judiciary.
The High
Court's judgement will provide every public authority with a judicially-sanctioned
right to question an applicant's motives, and refuse disclosure of information
on the ground that the request was made in bad faith.
There are no
explicit provisions in the RTI Act on which judges can rely to deny an
information request. The court held that since the right to information is a
fundamental right, it must also be restricted by those very parameters by which
the state is permitted to curtail the right to freedom of expression. A
distinction must be drawn between the right to information and the right to
seek information, and it is the latter that should prevail. But who will be the
final arbiter upon this right? The very same judiciary, which the constitution
entrusts with the mantle of being the custodian of Fundamental Rights.
Not only
should a citizen exercise the right to seek information in utmost good faith,
but it must be "legally sustainable" too, the court ruled, while
remaining silent as to under which law(s) shall this sustainability be judged.
The court
found that the applicant's requests for information regarding if the repeated
complaints against the Egmore magistrate had been acted upon, were vexatious
and bore the imprint of malice and lack of faith in the judicial system.
As regards
the appointment of the Registrar General, an administrative position that
involves quasi-judicial functions, all that the applicant sought to know was if
there were any standard rules which were followed in setting up the selection
committee. He did not seek to pry into how judges discharge their judicial
functions, but only to know how the judiciary fulfils its administrative
responsibilities. This is something the public has an inalienable right to be
informed about.
This right
suffered a big blow with the court's ruling that the Registrar General's post
is a "sensitive" one, hence providing a valid ground to decline an
information request. Questioning or
seeking to know the details of the appointment procedure was tantamount to
casting aspersions on the judiciary's impartiality and integrity, the court
held.
While court
decisions provide a clear insight into how judges proceed with the task, the
manner in which the judiciary performs its administrative functions remain
shrouded in mystery. It would be facile and disingenuous to segregate the
administrative functions from the judicial ones, because both are integral to
the process of delivering justice.