Shiv Sena calls CJI's Office coming under RTI purview a 'historic decision'

Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], Nov 15 (ANI): The Shiv Sena on Friday hailed the Supreme Court for ruling that the Chief Justice of India's Office is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Calling it a historic decision, the party in its mouthpiece 'Saamna' stated, "The decision of the Supreme Court is going to give far-reaching results and broaden the right to information."
Observing that transparency strengthens judicial independence, a five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna on Wednesday upheld the 2010 order of the Delhi High Court, saying that "judicial independence and accountability go hand-in-hand as accountability ensures, and is a facet of judicial independence."
Reading out the majority verdict, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is also in the line of succession to be the Chief Justice of India, said public interest demands that transparency is maintained.
"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," he said.
"Independence in a given case may well demand openness and transparency by furnishing the information. 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," he added.
The apex court also said that 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. Notably, there has been a change after concerns were expressed on disclosure of the names and the reasons for those who had not been approved," the bench observed. (ANI)