JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) VS. UNION OF INDIA

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 9

CITATION	SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6100 OF 2021 (DIARY No.24744 of 2020)
DATE OF JUDGMENT	12^th April 2021
PETITIONER	Justice V. Eswaraiah, a retired judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and former Chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission.
RESPONDENT	Union of India, represented by the Department of Justice and other concerned departments, and Justice N.V. Ramana, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India at the time.
BENCH	R. Subhash Reddy, Ashok Bhushan

INTRODUCTION

According to the judgement passed by the apex court of India, commonly known as the Supreme Court in the case of Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd. ) Vs Union of India, on April 12, 2021. The case mainly involved aspects of Judicial Conduct, Right to information and Judicial impartiality.

The case being where Justice V. Eswaraiah, a retired judge attempted to perform an act under Right to Information (RTI) Act to seek certain information regarding a conversation of Justice N. V. Ramana, a judge of the Supreme Court of India at that time and later became the Chief Justice of India. The petitioner argued that the talk might disclose some data on Justice Ramana’s interference in the appointment of judges.

In answering this issue, the Supreme Court highlighted the conflict between openness in the judiciary and the requisite preservation of the system’s purity as a separate component of its judgment. Even on the RTI Act, the court held that some of the details sought for in this case could not be disclosed as this would intrude on the privacy and courtesy of communicating judges especially when the communication was on the working of and the separation of powers of the judiciary.

The case brought to the foreground the raw struggles of the officials in India regarding the transparency of the judicial appointment and the issues of the RTI Act in searching for information related to the judiciary.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Justice V. Eswaraiah received a phone call from Mr. G. S. Rao, a former member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). During this call, Rao allegedly made remarks suggesting that Justice N.V. Ramana was involved in discussions about influencing judicial appointments and transfers. Eswaraiah recorded this conversation.
Justice V. Eswaraiah filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, seeking to make the recording and transcript of the conversation public. He argued that the content of the conversation was of public interest as it pertained to the functioning of the judiciary and alleged interference by Justice Ramana.
ISSUES RAISED

Could the information sought by Justice Eswaraiah be disclosed under the RTI Act? The case also involved questions about the confidentiality of judicial communications and the potential impact on the independence of the judiciary.

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

In the case of *Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd. ) vs. Union of India*, the petitioner, Justice V. Eswaraiah, presented several key contentions:In the case of *Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd. ) vs. Union of India*, the petitioner, Justice V. Eswaraiah, presented several key contentions:

Justice Eswaraiah claimed that most of the conversation, which was captured in the audio recording between him and Mr. G. S. Rao was highly relevant to the public. He argued that the talk might have exposed some efforts to meddle with the judiciary’s staffing, something that if carried out, compromises this branch of government. He argued that the above information should be disclosed to the public so that there can be check and balance in the judicial system.

The petitioner argued that the RTI Act requires that any information in the possession of the public authority, judiciary in this case, should be divulged unless the Act provides an exclusion on the same. He pointed out that the sought information could not be claimed as falling under any of the exemptions provided in the RTI Act and thus should be released to the public. Eswaraiah argued that the spirit of the RTI Act is to ensure that the public gets information and to deny the information would be un-RTI Act like. Justice Eswaraiah also explained that the lower level of respect shown by Justice N. V. Ramana to Justice Rao might mean misbehavior or exerting improper pressure in issues concerning the management of judiciary. He pointed out that such accusations must be checked to justify the judiciary’s credibility and the people’s confidence in the same. Reporting the conversation, as Eswaraiah points out, would enable the conduct of a proper investigation to make sure that all the misconducts are thus dealt with. This spurred the petitioner into arguing that percipient of the conversation would not endanger the sovereignty of the judiciary. Instead, it would strengthen and underpin accountability and transparency of the judicial branch. He stressed on the importance of openness in matters concerning appointments of judges and controversies relating to administratively superior courts that are necessary to sustain the people’s faith in the judiciary.

All the contentions of Justice V. Eswaraiah are based on the principles of general public interest and the purpose and intention of the RTI Act, extending as they do to the principles of right to information.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

In the case of Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd. ) vs. Union of India, the respondents, including the Union of India and Justice N. V. Ramana, presented the following key contentions: In the case of *Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd. ) vs. Union of India*, the respondents, including the Union of India and Justice N. V. Ramana, presented the following key contentions:

As for the conversation about allegations regarding appointments and transfers of judiciary officials, the respondents pointed to confidentiality as the reason. They argued that the concern between the judges concerning the administrative work of the judiciary is protected and thus should not be disclosed. This confidentiality is common-sensical as it helps preserve the judiciary’s independence and quality. Two-thirds of the respondents stressed that the independence of the judiciary is one of the crucial conditions for a democratic society and it should be preserved. They claimed that revealing what is said or written in private chats or in-house communications with other judges could harm free discourse, dissuade judges from sharing their thoughts or opinions, or voicing their concerns. It might in the long run compromise the independence of the judiciary branch of Government. The respondents also stood their ground by stating that the information the petitioner is looking for is covered under the exemptions of the RTI Act. In particular, they claimed that it might jeopardise the course of investigation or jeopardise the activity of judges, which are the reasons for exemption under the Act. They also noted the fact that, for instance, the information referring to conversations and private data is also non-disclosed. The respondents interview felt that the information may be abused if passed to the public domain. They also contended that if only partial information is released then there is some hidden element in the news that the press may distort or exaggerate creating an undesired perception about the judiciary in the eyes of the public. They pointed out that such information releasing could be more damaging instead of being helpful to the public wellbeing. Regarding this, the respondents pointed out that there were no sufficient legal reasons for the disclosure of the information sought by Justice Eswaraiah in public interest. Thus, they argued that the petitioner’s claims were hypothetical and did not constitute proper reason to reveal her identity to the public. Thus, the interest of the judiciary to cover any misconduct because of the innocence of the bench outweighed any interest the public may have had in this case.

JUDGMENT

Comparatively, in the case of Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India passed the judgement on 12-04-2021. These included matters on the independence of the judiciary; a call for disclosure; and implementation of the RTI Act.

The Supreme Court concluded that some of the communication occurring between judges is considered confidential by its very nature. By the said judgment and decree the court has made it clear that these communications especially the judicial appointments transfers and other administrative communications should not be brought under the RTI Act Section 4(1)(b)(v) Para-X. This confidentiality is required to avoid compromise of the judiciary and hence it has to be kept independent. Although appreciating the role of transparency in sustaining public trust in the judiciary arm of government, the court opined that there was a need to preserve jurists’ independence. This the court said could seriously deter the functioning of the judiciary and its perception by the public if sensitive information is released to the public domain without any discretion.

The court explained that though the RTI Act has useful provisions concerning government departments, agencies and officials, it has its demerits, particularly where the judiciary is concerned. In particular, it held that the Act does not encompass all facets of activity in courts inasmuch as the provision of the information may harm the independence of the judiciary. The lady justice quashed the request of Justice V. Eswaraiah with regard to their own, recorded conversation and the transcript of the recording as well. The court further held that the information sought did not qualify for disclosure to the public as do to the jeopardy it would pose on the integrity and independence of the judiciary arm of the government.

ANALYSIS

The matter of Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd.) vs. Union of India is an example of a conflict of the doctrines of judicial self-governance, accountability of the judiciary’s work, and the public’s right to know the information.

The main challenges that can be distinguished in the case of the Supreme Court docket involve the relations of the court to other branches of government as well as the courts’ internal concerns, such as deification of the judiciary and the question is whether the court should be open to the public. Judicial freedom is one of the principles which guarantee that the judge is able to make his/her decision without outside influence. It is very essential to retain the confidence of the public in the judiciary as an independent and unbiased body.

On the other hand, there cannot be transparency for accountability in most of the institutions, particularly the judiciary. The RTI Act is a weapon or instrument that is used by the citizens to get access to information and at the same time act as a pointer for the openness of the government and public administration. It becomes pertinent to ask how far and in what fashion transparency should be applied to the judiciary; more so since the case mainly involves internal communications and administrative decisions.

The RTI Act can be described as a piece of legislation that supplies the public with access to information within the grasp of public organizations. However, the Act also provides for certain list of exemptions which includes matters that are considered to be national security, private individuals, and judges.

In this case, the Supreme Court had the legal assignment to decide whether the information that Justice V. Eswaraiah wanted to gain – the recorded conversation regarding judicial appointments and transfers – belonged to any of these exemptions. The Court’s decision to withhold the information is in consideration of the fact that not all information is disclosable especially any information that may pose a threat to the independence of the judiciary under the RTI Act. It is for this reason that the case is seized to highlight the issues of confidentiality in the communication of judicial staff. The judges need to engage in deliberation on issues that pertain to alternative matters including those that touch on the prospects of appointment and transfers since such can be very sensitive. The publication of these exchanges can therefore distort or taint the decision-making process thus creating a chilling effect whereby the judge may be discouraged from stating his/her true opinion or concern as that can be published publicly for he/she knows nothing will be done to the published content. As for the petitioner, it referred to the public interest to expose the conversation, however, the Court and the respondents pointed to the potential abuse of such information. Information disclosure to the public may result in sensationalism or misunderstanding which might endanger the credibility of the judiciary and that of the public. Also, abstracting from any controversy arising from the Court’s decision, it is clear that the prospect of disclosure in this case overpowered any public interest that might have existed.

The High court refers to this case to determine the extent to which the judiciary allows the public access to its records. Where it amplifies what the RTI Act is definitely a good tool to fight corruption and increase transparency, it underlines that this cannot endanger the independence and confidentiality of judiciary. The decision points to some of the aspects vital in the functioning of the judiciary sector, especially the internal communication, which have been deemed privileged in order to ensure that the desirable image of the judiciary was maintained.

Let me discuss the Justice V. Eswaraiah (Retd. ) vs. Union of India as relevant to the on-going debate on judicial transparency and the judiciary’s independence. It highlights the significant tension that exists in regards to the freedom of information specifically for the public and the government’s responsibility to preserve the independence of the judiciary branch where this branch’s authorities can be distorted by masses’ pressure. Despite the importance of transparency the question as to how much should be done should be answered in a way that does not erode the core features of the independent judiciary.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court observed that the object and purpose for which the enquiry was initiated was to find out the validity of the recorded conversation. After reviewing the facts the court held that the petitioner had admitted the validity of the conversation and had also submitted the correct transcript for the same. Therefore, it held that there was no reason to pursue the enquiry.

REFERENCES

This article is written by Anushka Sharma student of the School of Legal Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru; Inter at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.