Beyond the RTI’s Reach

One of the strongest weapons put in the hands of Indian citizens in recent times is the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It is a weapon that has enabled people to shake up a somnolent and corrupt administration time and again and compelled it to deliver justice and fair play without the aggrieved party having to go to court. We are aware of petty contractors whose earnest money or unpaid bills had been lying with the Public Works Department (PWD) for years without rhyme or reason except the whims of officers and clerks concerned or because the requisite bribe had not been paid. After the RTI Act became law, RTI queries have resulted in the release of such long-standing arrear payments. Not surprisingly, there are now several civil rights groups and NGOs that have concentrated on educating the public in the effective use of the RTI Act for redressal of a whole gamut of wrongs that had earlier pushed people to law courts entailing long delays. Where a sense of hopelessness and despondency had earlier gripped most people, the RTI Act has now enabled them to see light at the end of the dark tunnel.

However, it is possible to be a little too euphoric about the RTI Act at times than what might be warranted. The RTI Act has serious limitations as far as the law courts and the verdicts of judges and magistrates are concerned. On Monday, the Supreme Court provided the answer to a rather knotty question relating to the ability of the RTI Act to elicit information about a judge’s verdict. Stated specifically, the question was: Can a judge be asked under the Right to Information Act as to why and how he came to a particular conclusion in a judgement? The answer was a categorical “no” from the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice BS Chauhan ruled, “A judge speaks through his judgements and he is not answerable to anyone as to why he wrote a judgement in a particular manner,” while dismissing an appeal filed by one Khanapuram Gandaiah who had not even challenged the verdict in his case before an appellate forum before approaching the apex court. What he had asked using an RTI query was why the judge concerned did not consider parts of his submissions and voluminous documents while additionally putting other questions about other aspects of the judgements against him. Gandaiah went wrong on three counts according to the apex court. First, he did not go on appeal against the verdict of the judge to a higher court as he could have. Second, he resorted to an RTI query where there was no scope for such a query. Third, he went to the Supreme Court before going to an appellate court. However, the fact remains that there are countless instances of judges refusing to even look at documents and submissions that are absolutely germane to the points made in an appeal before a court. While the Supreme Court has made a valid point that there can be no questions raised about why and how a judge took a particular view in giving a verdict, the fact remains that courts do not always function the way they are supposed to or the way they did half-a-century ago. There are many instances of judges refusing to look at the evidence or documents placed as corroboration to statements made in an appeal. As the Supreme Court rules out any RTI queries about the verdicts of magistrates and judges, it would do well to ensure that the courts under it are properly briefed and disciplined not to ignore any evidence or document annexed to appeals as proofs of statements made in such appeals. Prejudiced judges are no longer a rare species in some courts.THE SENTINEL