Day: November 21, 2019

Rajya Sabha passed 3,817 Bills in the last 67 years; Held 5,466 sittings since 1952

The first ever effort by the Rajya Sabha secretariat to quantify and analyse the legislative work done by the Upper House since it came into being in 1952 has revealed that the House has passed 3,817 Bills till the end of the last and the 249th session. Of these, 60 Bills had lapsed due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha at various points of time while 63 Bills were deemed to have been passed by the Upper House while two Bills cleared by it are still to be taken up in Lok Sabha. In effect, a total of 3,818 Acts of Parliament have been made since the first general elections in 1952.
A wide range of such statistical summary and other details on various aspects of the functioning  of the House are contained in a publication “Rajya Sabha : The Journey since 1952” released by Chairman Shri M.Venkaiah  Naidu at a meeting of the leaders of various parties and groups here today. Shri Naidu convened the meeting to seek cooperation of the parties for smooth functioning of the landmark 250th session of Rajya Sabha beginning tomorrow.
The 118 page publication with 29 chapters is a ready reckoner with interesting statistics, details of the first moves and some unique events besides details of major Bills passed by the Rajya Sabha in respect of social change, economic transformation, industrial development, health, education, agriculture, environment, national security and the objectives of 103 Constitution amendments so far made etc.
A glimpse of the content relating to the journey of Rajya Sabha during the last 67 years since it’s first sitting on 13.5.1952 is furnished below:
Members :
Total members of Rajya Sabha so far including those with more than one term is 2,282 including 208 women and 137 nominated members. Dr.Mahendra Prasad is serving the highest number of 7th term followed by Dr.Manmohan Singh serving 6th term. Dr.Najma Heptulla and late Shri Ram Jethmalani are the other two with six terms each.  Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad, Shri A.K.Anthony, Shri Ahmed Patel and Smt.Ambika Soni are into their fifth term while Shri Pranab  Mukherjee, late Shri Bhupesh Gupta, Shri Sitaram Kesri, Ms.Sajor Khaparde, Shri B.V.Abdulla Koya  were among the 11 members with five terms in the Upper House. Rajya Sabha Chairman Shri Naidu is among the 45 members with four terms each.
The representation of women in Rajya Sabha increased from 15 (6.94%) in 1952 increased to 31(12.76%) in 2014 and is now  26(10.83%) in 2019.
Some unique events relating to Rajya Sabha:
1.Casting vote by the Chair: The first and the only time when a Presiding Officer of Rajya Sabha cast his  vote was when the Panel Chairman Shri M.A.Baby did so on 5.8. 1991 when the voting was tied 39-39 on the Statutory Resolution moved by the opposition seeking disapproval of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance resulting in the victory of the opposition in the House.
2.President Rule approved only by Rajya Sabha: It happened only twice in respect of extension of President Rule in Tamilnadu and Nagaland in 1977 and in case of Haryana in 1991 when Lok Sabha was dissolved.
3.Removal of a Judge: The only time Rajya Sabha adopted a motion for removal of a Judge was in respect of Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court on 18.8.2011 but he resigned before the motion was taken up in Lok Sabha.
4.Expulsion of members: Rajya Sabha adopted a motion on 15.11.1976 for expulsion of Dr.Subramanian Swamy whose conduct and activities were found by a Committee to be derogatory to the dignity of the House and it’s members. Dr.Chatrapal Singh was expelled on 23.11.2005 after Ethics Committee found him guilty of accepting money for asking questions. Dr.Swami Sakhsi Ji Maharaj was expelled on 21.3.2006 for irregularities in recommending projects under MPLAD scheme.
5.Suspension of members for the remainder of the session:  7 members viz.,Shri Kamal Akhtar,Shri Veer  Pal  Singh Yadav, Dr.Ejaz Ali, Shri Sabir Ali, Shri Subhash Prasad Yadav, Shri Amil Alam Khan and Shri Nand Kishore Yadav were on 9.3.2010 suspended for the remainder of the 219th session for willfully obstructing the Business of the House during discussion on women’s reservation bill.
6. Reprimand: Former Member of Rajya Sabha Shri K.K.Tiwari was summoned to the Bar of the House and was reprimanded on 1.6.1990 for a statement published in newspapers the same day that brought the office of Chairman and the House to indignity and contempt.
7. Bill passed by Rajya Sabha but negative by Lok Sabha: The Constitution (Sixty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1990 seeking to amend Article 356 relating to extension of President’s Rule in Punjab.
8. Bills passed by Lok Sabha but negatived by Rajya Sabha (5): The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1970 seeking to terminate privy purses and privileges of former Indian States, The Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1977, The Constitution (Sixty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1989 seeking to insert a new Part IX in the constitution relating to Panchayats, The Constitution (Sixty-fifth Amendment) Bill, 1989 relating to Nagar Panchayats and Municipalities and The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002.
9.Bill reconsidered by Rajya Sabha: Rajya Sabha passed the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill on 17.5.2006 as earlier passed by Lok Sabha but the President referred the same for reconsideration on 30.5.2006. Rajya Sabha reconsidered the same and passed as it was on 27.7.2006 and Lok Sabha passed it four later and was later assented to by the President on 18.8.2006.
10. Bills passed at the joint sittings of both the Houses of Parliament (3):
-The Dowry  Prohibition Bill, 1959 was first introduced in and passed by Lok Sabha. Rajya Sabha later insisted on some amendments to which Lok Sabha did not agree. The Bill was passed on 9.5.1961 at a joint sitting.
-The Banking Service Commission (Repeal) Bill, 1978 first introduced in and passed by Lok Sabha was later rejected by Rajya Sabha. It was passed on 16.5.2018 at a joint sitting.
-The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002 passed by Lok Sabha was negatived by Rajya Sabha and was later passed at a joint sitting on 26.3.2002.
Some firsts relating to Rajya Sabha:
First sitting of the House was held on 13.5.1952
First Bill passed : The Indian Tariff (Second Amendment) Bill, 1952
First Bill concerning social change: The Special Marriages Bill, 1952
First Constitution Amendment Bill passed by Rajya Sabha: The Constitution (Second Amendment) Bill, 1953 for readjustment of  representation in Lok Sabha by increasing the size of population per constituency.
First Bill on Law and Order: The Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Bill, 1952
First Bill on imports: The Live-stock Importation (Amendment) Bill, 1953
First media related Bill: The Press (Objectionable Matters) Amendment Bill, 1953
First on reorganization of States: The Andhra State Bill, 1953
First Bill on health education: The All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bill, 1955
First on urban development : The Faridabad Development Corporation Bill, 1955
First on agriculture: The Agriculture Produce (Development and Warehousing Corporations) Bill, 1956
First Bill on all-India services: The All India Services (Amendment) Bill, 1958
First security related Bill: The Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Bill, 1958
First relating to animals: The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill, 1959
First on corporate take over: The Jayanti Shipping Company (Taking Over of Management) Bill, 1966
First on pollution: The Prevention of Water Pollution Bill, 1969
First nationalization Bill: The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Bill, 1970
First against economic offences: The Economic Offences (Incapability of Limitation) Bill, 1974
First Money Bill deemed to have been passed by Rajya Sabha: The Appropriation (Railways) No.4 Bill, 1978
First Bill referring to terrorism: The Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Bill, 1984
Bills passed by Lok Sabha and amended by Rajya Sabha : The 120 such  Bills include; The Companies Bill, 1953, The UGC Bill, 1954, The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1978, The Chit Funds Bill, 1982, The Prevention of Corruption Bill, 1988, The Prevention of Money Laundering Bill, 2002, The Special Economic Zones Bill, 2005, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill, 2013, The Lok Pal and Lok Ayuktas Bill, 2016, The National Medical Council Bill, 2019 and The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
The most impactful Bills passed by Rajya Sabha sector-wise since 1952 include:
-The  Hindu Marriage and Divorce Bill, 1952, The Hindu Succession Bill, 1954, The Sexual Harassment of  Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012, The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019 and the Constitution (One Hundred and Third) Amendment Act, 2019 providing for reservation for the economically weaker sections.
The Companies Bill, 1953 (and of 1956 and 2013), Banks Nationalisation Bill, 1970, Coal Mines Nationalisation Bill, 1973, the Prevention of Money Laundering Bill, 1999, the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Bill, 2003, the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Bill, 2015, the Constitution Amendment Bill, 2016 introducing GST, The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018 and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The States Reorganisation Bill, 1956, The North-Eastern Council Bill, 1969, The National Capital Region Planning Board Bill, 1985, The Constitution 73rd and 74th Amendment Acts, 1992 providing for direct elections to Panchayats and Municipal bodies with one third reservation for women and The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019.
The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Bill, 1981, The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Bill, 1985 and The National Dairy Development Board Bill, 1987.
The All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bill, 1955, The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Bill, 1991, The Transplantation of Human Organs (Amendment) Bill, 2011 and the National  Medical Commission Bill, 2019
The University Grants Commission Bill, 1954 and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2009.
The Wild Life (Protection) Bill, 1972, The Forest (Conservation) Bill, 1980, The Environment (Protection) Bill, 1986, The Compensatory Afforestation Bill, 2016.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Bill, 1967, The Maintenance of Internal Security Bill, 1971, The National Security Bill, 1980, The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Bill, 1985, The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002, The National Investigation Agency Bill, 2008 and The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019.
Other impactful Bills passed by Rajya Sabha include; The Official Languages Bill, 1963, The Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Bill, 1980, The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986, The Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Bill, 1989, The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Bill, 1991, The Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Bill, 1993, The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Bill, 1995, The Electricity Regulatory Commission Bill, 1998, The Information Technology Bill, 2000, The Right to Information Bill, 2005, The National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill, 2005, The Lok Pal and Lok Ayuktas Bill, 2013, The Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
In his foreword to the publication, Chairman Shri Venkaiah Naidu said; “Indeed, Rajya Sabha has all through been a lively and sagacious institution. It should continue to function with even greater vigor and zeal towards fulfilling the aspirations of the people, especially, the younger ones. Still, some missed opportunities may not be ruled out. We need to learn from the experience of the last 67 years and strive to make our Parliament even more effective towards building a New India which compares favorably with the better placed in the comity of the nations. Time is the essence in doing so and for making up for the missed opportunities.”
**********

Check Insurance Premium Amount Online Instantly

  There used to be a time when people thought insurance was a luxury. However, with the times and people’s lifestyles changing, insurance is not a luxury anymore. Insurance policies help us in dealing with unforeseen circumstances and help us cover expenses in such cases. This is the reason that many of us already have one or another insurance policy.

Now, everyone who buys an insurance policy needs to pay their insurance premium online. If you are looking for a way to pay your insurance premiums or want to check the premium amount, you can do that easily online.

But how?

Let’s check the steps.

How to Check Insurance Premium Amount Online?

The process to check the insurance premium online is very simple, and you can do it by following a few simple steps. Visit Paytm, and follow these steps to check your insurance premiums online:

On Paytm Mobile Application:

  • Open Paytm application on your mobile phone
  • Click on ‘Recharge & Pay Bills’
  • Scroll down to the ‘Featured Services’ section and click on ‘LIC / Insurance’
  • Select your Insurer and enter the required details such as Policy Number, Date of Birth etc.
  • Click on ‘Get Premium’ to check your premium amount online

On Paytm’s Official Website

  • Go to the ‘Insurance Premium Payment’ page on Paytm
  • Select your Insurer
  • Enter the required details such as Policy Number, Date of Birth etc.
  • Click on ‘Get Premium’ to check your premium amount online

It is that simple to check your insurance premiums online on Paytm. You can also pay your insurance premium on Paytm after you have checked your insurance premium amount. 

Why should you have an Insurance Policy?

Insurance policies benefit us in many ways along with the coverage that they provide in the hour of uncertainty. Here are some of the most important perks for having an insurance policy:

  • Insurance Coverage: This is the primary benefit and reason for getting an insurance policy. If the uncertainty falls under the domain of the policy, then you can get coverage for the same as per the policy.
  • Cash Flow Management: This is rather an advantage that isn’t talked about a lot. In an hour of uncertainty, the burden of paying for the losses can put a lot of pressure on the individuals and the family. So, when the sum is being covered by the insurance policy then it takes the burden off their shoulders.
  • Tax Benefits: Apart from the coverage, having insurance policies tax benefits as well. You can get tax exemptions under sections 80C, 80D, and 10D.
Conclusion

Having an insurance policy is a must as it helps us in the hour of uncertainty as they provide coverage for such unforeseen situations. You can check your insurance premium amount online before you make payment on platforms like Paytm by following a few simple steps.


RTI Applicable To Office Of CJI: SC Upholds Delhi HC Judgment

To start with, in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Supreme Court on November 13 while exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction has clearly and categorically held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act. But it has also added a rider that “when the public interest demands the disclosure of information, judicial independence has to be kept in mind while deciding the question of exercise of discretion. The five Judge Constitution Bench comprising of the then Chief Justice of India – Ranjan Gogoi and Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna heard this all-important case which will have immense significance as it directly concerns the top court and none other than the Chief Justice of India himself!

RTI Applicable To Office Of CJI: SC Upholds Delhi HC Judgment
To put things in perspective, a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and all the Judges mentioned in the above para upheld the January 2010 Delhi High Court judgment delivered by the then Chief Justice AP Shah, Vikramjit Sen and S Murlidhar which said that the Apex Court and the office of the CJI would fall within the ambit of the 2005 RTI Act which in turn had upheld the then single Judge of Delhi High Court – Justice Ravindra Bhatt (later elevated as Supreme Court Judge) who had held on September 2, 2009 that, “The Office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the RTI Act and is covered by its provisions”. The Apex Court dismissed three appeals filed by its Central Public Information Officer and Secretary General challenging the order. While on the one hand, the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna rendered one judgment and it was Justice Sanjiv Khanna who wrote the majority opinion on behalf of the Bench, on the other hand, Justices NV Ramana and Justice DY Chandrachud delivered two separate concurring judgments. 
Needless to say, the introductory para first and foremost sets the tone and tenor of this landmark judgment by pointing out that, “This judgment would decide the afore-captioned appeals preferred by the Central Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’ for short), Supreme Court of India (appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 10044 and 10045 of 2010) and Secretary General, Supreme Court of India (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010), against the common respondent – Subhash Chandra Agarwal, and seeks to answer the question as to ‘how transparent is transparent enough’ under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act’ for short) in the context of collegium system for appointment and elevation of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts; declaration of assets by judges, etc.” 
What follows next in para 2 is stated thus: “Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal arises from an application moved by Subhash Chandra Agarwal before the CPIO, Supreme Court of India on 6th July, 2009 to furnish a copy of the complete correspondence with the then Chief Justice of India as the Times of India had reported that a Union Minister had approached through a lawyer, Mr. Justice R. Reghupati of the High Court of Madras to influence his judicial decisions. The information was denied by the CPIO, Supreme Court of India on the ground that the information sought by the applicant-respondent was not handled and dealt with by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India and the information relating thereto was neither maintained nor available with the Registry. First appeal filed by Subhash Chandra Aggarwal was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 05thSeptember, 2009. On further appeal, the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’ for short) vide order dated 24th November, 2009 has directed disclosure of information observing that disclosure would not infringe upon the constitutional status of the judges. Aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India has preferred this appeal.”
Going forward, para 3 then further enunciates that, “Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 arises from an application dated 23rd January, 2009 moved by Subhash Chandra Agarwal before the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnish a copy of complete file/papers as available with the Supreme Court of India inclusive of copies of complete correspondence exchanged between the concerned constitutional authorities with file notings relating to the appointment of Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu, Mr. Justice A.K. Ganguly and Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha superseding seniority of Mr. Justice A.P. Shah, Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, which was allegedly objected to by the Prime Minister. The CPIO vide order dated 25th February, 2009 had denied this information observing that the Registry did not deal with the matters pertaining to the appointment of the judges to the Supreme Court of India. Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts are made by the President of India as per the procedure prescribed by law and the matters relating thereto were not dealt with and handled by the Registry of the Supreme Court. The information was neither maintained nor available with the Registry. First appeal preferred by Subhash Chandra Agarwal was rejected vide order dated 25th March, 2009 by the appellate authority. On further appeal, the CIC has accepted the appeal and directed furnishing of information by relying on the judgment dated 02nd September, 2009 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 288 of 2009 titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Another. The CIC has also relied on the decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Others (1981) Supp SCC 87 to reach its conclusion. Aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India has preferred the present appeal stating, inter alia, that the judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 288 of 2009 was upheld by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 501 of 2009 vide judgment dated 12th January, 2010, which judgment is the subject matter of appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010.” 
To be sure, while writing the main judgment, Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the court while stressing the need for balancing transparency and accountability with judicial independence, “should not be understood to mean that the independence of the judiciary can be achieved only by denial of access to information.” He also added unequivocally that the “independence in a given case may well demand openness and transparency by furnishing the information.” It is certainly crucial as it will now open the door to RTI requests unlike earlier when the judicial system was rather opaque!
As it turned out, the historic order made it clear that, “Reference to the principle of judicial independence is not to undermine and avoid accountability which is an aspect we perceive and believe has to be taken into account while examining the public interest in favour of disclosure of information. Judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand as accountability ensures, and is a facet of judicial independence.”
Of course, the Bench said that the type and nature of the information is also a relevant factor to be considered. It also made it clear that, “Distinction must be drawn between the final opinion or resolutions passed by the collegiums with regard to appointment/elevation and transfer of judges with observations and indicative reasons and the inputs/data or details which the collegiums had examined. The rigour of public interest in divulging the input details, data and particulars of the candidate would be different from that of divulging and furnishing details of the output, that is the decision…Transparency and openness in judicial appointments juxtaposed with confidentiality of deliberations remain one of the most delicate and complex areas. Clearly, the position is progressive as well as evolving as steps have been taken to make the selection and appointment process more transparent and open”. 
To put it succinctly, it is stated in para 89 by Justice Sanjiv Khanna on behalf of five Judges of Constitution Bench that, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 and uphold the judgment dated 12th January, 2010 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 501 of 2009 which had upheld the order passed by the CIC directing the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnish information on the judges of the Supreme Court who had declared their assets. Such disclosure would not in any way, impinge upon the personal information and right to privacy of the judges. The fiduciary relationship rule in terms of clause (e) to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act is inapplicable. It would not affect the right to confidentiality of the judges and their right to protect personal information and privacy, which would be the case where details and contents of personal assets in the declaration are called for and sought in which event the public interest test as applicable vide Section 8(1)(j) and proviso to Section 11(1) of the RTI Act would come into operation.” 
What’s more, para 90 then holds that, “As far as Civil Appeal Nos. 10045 of 2010 and 10044 of 2010 are concerned, they are to be partly allowed with an order of remit to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to re-examine the matter after following the procedure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act as the information relates to third parties. Before a final order is passed, the concerned third parties are required to be issued notice and heard as they are not a party before us. While deciding the question of disclosure on remit, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India would follow the observations made in the present judgment by keeping in view the objections raised, if any, by the third parties. We have refrained from making specific findings in the absence of third parties, who have rights under Section 11(1) and their views and opinions are unknown. The reference and the appeals are accordingly disposed of.” 
Simply put, the key findings in this landmark judgment authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna for himself, CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice NV Ramana are as follows:-
1. The Supreme Court of India and the office of the CJI are two different public authorities. The Supreme Court would necessarily include the office of CJI and other Judges in view of Article 124 of the Constitution.
2. Ordinarily the relationship between the Chief Justice and Judges would not be that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary. However, it is not an absolute rule/code for in certain situations and acts, fiduciary relationship may arise.
3. The details of personal assets of Judges would not amount to personal information and disclosure of the same will not violate right to privacy of Judges.
4. Confidentiality has to be maintained in some aspects of judicial administration. It was held rightly that, “Confidentiality may have some bearing and importance in ensuring honest and fair appraisals, though it could work the other way around also and, therefore, what should be disclosed would depend on authentic enquiry relating to the public interest, that is, whether the right to access and the right to know outweighs the possible public interest in protecting privacy or outweighs the harm and injury to third parties when the information relates to such third parties or the information is confidential in nature.” 
While delivering a separate but concurring judgment, Justice NV Ramana first and foremost seeks to make it clear that, “In the domain of human rights, right to privacy and right to information have to be treated as co-equals and none can take precedence over the other, rather a balance needs to be struck”. 
On transparency, Justice Ramana very rightly elucidates in para 42 of his judgment that, “Coming to the aspect of transparency, judicial independence and the RTI Act, we need to note that there needs to be a balance between the three equally important concepts. The whole bulwark of preserving our Constitution, is trusted upon judiciary, when other branches have not been able to do so. As a shield, the judicial independence is the basis with which judiciary has maintained its trust reposed by the citizens. In light of the same, the judiciary needs to be protected from attempts to breach its independence. Such interference requires calibration of appropriate amount of transparency in consonance with judicial independence.”
While striking a note of caution, Justice Ramana then very rightly observed in para 43 that, “It must be kept in the mind that the transparency cannot be allowed to run to its absolute, considering the fact that efficiency is equally important principle to be taken into fold. We may note that right to information should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance to scuttle effective functioning of judiciary. While applying the second step the concerned authority needs to balance these considerations as well.” 
While welcoming this noteworthy judgment, the 69-year-old RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal who fought an arduous 12-yeart-long battle to ensure that the highest office in judiciary is answerable to people termed the Apex Court’s decision on it as “milestone” in the fight for transparency in public offices. He eloquently said that, “This is a landmark judgment and will prove to be a milestone in the era of transparency. The Apex Court has ruled against its own (office) and said that the CJI comes under the ambit of RTI. I wholeheartedly welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment.”
It cannot be denied that a new study by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy has found that there is a “yawning gap” between the judiciary’s pronouncements on the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the manner in which the High Courts are implementing it. The report said that, “In particular, the lack of transparency in financial matters of the High Courts is very worrying. Most High Courts do not proactively publish details about their budgets and expenditure. Even fewer High Courts are willing to provide copies of their budgets and audit reports under the RTI Act.” The report has also found that several High Courts have included patently illegal clauses in their RTI Rules and despite Section 8 of the RTI Act restricting the number of grounds for denying information to citizens, the RTI rules of several High Courts have included additional grounds for rejecting requests for information! The report also said that it should be a matter of concern to see the judiciary lagging behind the Centre when it comes to abiding by the letter and spirit of the RTI Act! All this must change if this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment is to be taken to its logical conclusion!
Justice DY Chandrachud in his separate yet concurring judgment very rightly and remarkably points out while going the extra mile saying in para 117 that, “If the content of the right and the enforcement of the statute are to possess a meaningful dimension in their application to the judiciary – as it must, certain steps are necessary. Foremost among them is that the basis for the selection and appointment of judges to the higher judiciary must be defined and placed in the public realm. This is the procedure which is followed in making appointments but also in terms of the substantive norms which are adopted while making judicial appointments. There can be no denying the fact that there is a vital element of public interest in knowing about the norms which are taken into consideration in selecting candidates for higher judicial officer and making judicial appointments. Knowledge is a powerful instrument which secures consistency in application and generates the confidence that is essential to the sanctity of the process of judicial appointments. This is essentially because the collegiums system postulates that proposals for appointment of judges are initiated by the judges themselves.”
Needless to say, Justice Chandrachud also minces no words to make it clear by adding further after mentioning the essential substantial norms in regard to judicial appointments in this same para 117 that, “The present judgment does not seek to define what the standards for judicial appointments should be. However, what needs to be emphasised is that the substantive standards which are borne in mind must be formulated and placed in the public realm as a measure that would promote confidence in the appointments process. Due publicity to the norms which have been formulated and are applied would foster a degree of transparency and promote accountability in decision making at all levels within the judiciary and the government. The norms may also spell out the criteria followed for assessing the judges of the district judiciary for higher judicial office. There is a vital public interest in disclosing the basis on which those with judicial experience are evaluated to higher judicial office particularly having regard to merit, integrity and judicial performance. Placing the criteria followed in making judicial appointments in the public domain will fulfil the purpose and mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act, engender public confidence in the process and provides a safeguard against extraneous considerations entering into the process.”
No doubt, this extremely landmark and laudable judgment has sent a very loud and clear message that even CJI is not exempted from the purview of RTI Act. This will clearly serve to increase transparency in the functioning of judiciary. This will also send a loud and clear message that the judiciary has to show more and hide less!
It has certainly set a great precedent for other institutions to follow and it won’t be asking too much if we say that Centre must work relentlessly to ensure that those who are left out of its purview are too brought under its ambit! Even political parties and politicians must be brought fully within RTI’s ambit! CBI which is still out of RTI must also be brought within RTI’s ambit! 
It must be mentioned here that when the RTI Act was enacted on October 12, 2005, the CBI came under its purview but the CBI later moved for exemption and this was endorsed by the then Union Law Minister M Veerappa Moily of the UPA government even though Moily himself as head earlier of the Administrative Reforms Commission had recommended that armed forces be exempted from RTI Act but no such recommendation was made for the CBI! Anyway, it has to be conceded that a good beginning has been made by the Apex Court by holding clearly that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the RTI Act! But it should not stop just here only! This good tempo must be certainly maintained and all those left out should also be brought under its ambit! 
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.