RTI V/S JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

RELEVANCE OF THE TOPIC IN CONTEMPORARY WORLD

The relevance of Right to Information laws is greater today than it ever was, as citizens now want greater accountability and transparency from their governments as democracies grow and human rights awareness expands.

Judicial independence safeguards the rights and benefits that are granted to the individuals in our society by the Indian constitution. It forbids the other two branches of government, the executive and legislative, from infringing on those rights.

Judicial independence and the Right to Information (RTI) are both key pillars of democracy that are still relevant. In many nations, the independence of the judiciary is under strain, with politicians and other powerful individuals attempting to influence court rulings for their own ends. However, the RTI is frequently hampered or limited, with governments and other organisations attempting to suppress information deemed sensitive or inconvenient.

ABSTRACT

It is a legal right of the individuals to have access to the information that is held by the government and public authorities under RTI regulations. A step towards creating accountability, transparency and good governance is by implementing these guidelines. RTI laws provide citizens with access to information that is vital for their daily lives and ensure that public workers are held accountable for their acts and thus empowers the citizens. They also stand for human rights, while promoting the citizen engagement in governance to combat corruption.

Introduction

Independence of the judiciary is important to the rule of law. As per the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the courts to ensure that rights of the individuals are protected. The courts must be able to make decisions free from any outside interference, especially from the government, in order to guarantee that a person's fundamental rights are protected. By dividing up the power, it is possible to maintain a balance between rights of an individual and social norms. The rule of law is crucial for preserving national stability. Also, a solid rule of law can be established through an impartial and independent court.

One of the very crucial elements of Indian democratic system is the Independence of judiciary. India has a written constitution and the independence of judiciary is mentioned in it. This feature is a part of basic structure of Indian Constitution and it has separated India from other countries. It is the right of the citizens to know why, how and what decision or change has happened in the functioning under the democratic system.  

The case Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal rendered a decision in the right direction.  Indian constitution through Articles 19 and 21 grant the right to information as a constitutional right, passed by Indian Parliament in 2005 .

Due to the change in time and laws, individuals have become more aware of their basic rights and the right to further judicial interrogation. The judiciary was engaged in a conflict over the right to information. There is also a comparison between the circumstances in different nations and the laws they have established to uphold the accountability of their governments that is made.

OBJECTIVES

RTI laws aim to improve transparency and accountability in government decision-making by granting citizens access to information held by public agencies. Judicial independence, on the other hand, seeks to ensure that the judiciary may make decisions free of external influences or influence and serve as an unbiased arbiter of conflicts.

ANALYSIS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT

INDIAN JUDICIARY SYSTEM:

The Indian judicial system comprises of numerous levels of courts with various authority, and duties. The Indian judiciary is organized into three levels:

•      District courts and courts of metropolitan magistrates

•      High Courts

•      Supreme Court of India, the nation's highest court

Independence of courts:

The impartiality and independence of the Indian judicial system are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, which also protects judges from outside pressures and influences.

The courts' primary responsibility is to hear cases, render judgements, and effectively and adequately settle legal disputes for the betterment of society and its members. The creation of law need to be transparent. There should be clarity in the development of law. While examining the extent of judicial review, the interest of public authorities can be seen in many cases which is why there is a need for independence and the respect for this independence that is demanded by judicial review. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr. Vs Union of India (1993) case, it was stated by the court that it is essential for the effective and efficient functioning of the democracy that there should be independence of the judiciary.

Right to information and judicial interpretation of freedom of speech and expression:

The Right to Information (RTI) and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution are related, as both are concerned with freedom of expression and access to information. It was in the case of LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah, where the importance of the freedom of speech and expression was decided and it was made an essential part of freedom of information.  Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to receive and transmit information. This implies that citizens have the right to access and distribute information held by public entities. The Indian judiciary has interpreted the right to freedom of speech and expression in the context of Right to Information (RTI) laws, emphasising the significance of access to information in promoting transparency and accountability in government decision-making. Through a series of rulings, the Supreme Court of India has recognised the right to access information as an inherent component of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Court has ruled that the right to access information is vital for the operation of democracy and for citizens to engage in the political process and hold public officials responsible.

The RTI rules are consequently viewed as a crucial tool for enhancing transparency and accountability in government decision-making and for guaranteeing that citizens can exercise their right to free expression. By allowing citizens to access information held by public bodies, RTI laws help to empower citizens and encourage a more educated and engaged citizenry.

Nonetheless, the Court has also acknowledged that there may be limitations on the right of access to information, and that these limitations may be essential to protect other vital interests, such as national security, individual privacy, or the proper operation of the court.

In interpreting the freedom of speech and expression in the context of RTI laws, the judiciary has sought to find a balance between the right to obtain information and the need to protect other essential interests. This has necessitated a thorough analysis of the competing interests at stake and an acknowledgment of the significance of ensuring that RTI laws are implemented in a manner that respects the ideals of transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, it was reaffirmed that it is the role of governments like ours to hold all public employees accountable for their acts. The citizens of this nation have the right to be informed of every public act and all that public functionaries conduct in a public fashion. The facts of this case were that Raj Narain, who questioned the legitimacy of Mrs. Gandhi's victory, demanded the release of Blue Books outlining the Prime Minister's travel itinerary and security measures. Judge Mathew ruled that the public had the right to know the specifics of each public transaction during all proceedings, despite the fact that disclosure had not been authorised.

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ARE IN CONFLICT:

Judicial independence and Right to Information (RTI) laws are both essential components of a democratic society, yet there may be circumstances in which they conflict. Judges must be free from extraneous pressures and influences and able to carry out their duties without fear or favour in order to be independent. This involves the ability to deliberate and make choices without undue intervention or pressure from the executive, legislative, or public opinion.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

On the other side, RTI laws are intended to improve transparency and accountability in government decision-making by granting citizens access to information held by public bodies. This covers information pertaining to the operation of the judiciary, such as the appointment and promotion of judges and the use of public funds. While RTI laws are vital in encouraging transparency and accountability, they may also constitute a threat to judicial independence if they are used to interfere with the operation of the judiciary. If, for instance, RTI requests are exploited to gain access to confidential court deliberations or to influence judicial judgements, this could jeopardise judges' capacity to carry out their duties impartially and without fear or favour.

In order to strike a balance between these competing interests, it is essential that RTI legislation be administered in a way that respects the independence of the judiciary. This can be accomplished by safeguarding the confidentiality of court deliberations and judgements and ensuring that RTI requests are not utilised to influence judicial decisions. At the same time, it is essential to guarantee that the judiciary operates in an open and accountable manner, and that information pertaining to its operations is made available to the public, subject to the application of proper protections. In addition to ensuring transparency and accountability in the administration of justice, this can help develop public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

 COMPARATIVE STUDY

A comparative study analysis of the Right to Information (RTI) laws and judicial independence in various nations might help to discover best practises for reconciling them in a way that promotes openness, accountability, and the rule of law. Here are several examples:

1. India: India has a robust RTI law that applies to all public authorities, including the judiciary. Nonetheless, the execution of RTI laws in connection to the judiciary can be hard, as the revelation of some information may jeopardise the independence or impartiality of the judiciary. The Indian judiciary has developed clear rules for the execution of RTI laws pertaining to the judiciary and has implemented RTI exceptions prudently to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process.

2. United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has a long history of judicial independence, which is maintained by the separation of powers constitutional principle. Since it applies to all public authorities, including the judiciary, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of the United Kingdom has a greater scope than the RTI rules. Yet, the judiciary is excluded from certain obligations, such as the obligation to provide advice and assistance to requesters.

3. Canada: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms supports a robust system of judicial independence in Canada. All government institutions, including the judiciary, are covered by the broad scope of the Access to Information Act (ATIA) in Canada. To maintain the independence or impartiality of the judiciary, the ATIA permits certain exceptions, such as attorney-client privilege and the confidentiality of judicial deliberations.

4. South Africa: South Africa's constitution promotes both the right to access information and judicial independence. The Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) of the country extends to all public and commercial entities, including the court. The judiciary is subject to additional measures of transparency and accountability, such as the Judicial Service Commission, which is responsible for appointing, promoting, and disciplining judges.

In order to promote democratic governance and uphold the rule of law, it is necessary to strike a balance between the principles of transparency and accountability and the principles of judicial independence, according to a comparative analysis of RTI laws and judicial independence in various nations. It demands careful analysis of the opposing interests at stake and a commitment to finding solutions that respect the integrity of both the RTI laws and the judiciary.

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Right to Information (RTI) laws and judicial independence are both crucial parts of democratic administration, and it is important to find ways to balance them without jeopardising the integrity of either. One method to accomplish this is to ensure that RTI laws are implemented in a way that respects the values of judicial independence while fostering transparency and accountability in government decision-making. This could include:

1.   Establishing clear implementation instructions for RTI laws pertaining to the judiciary: Clear rules and procedures can help to guarantee that the RTI laws are applied in a way that respects the values of judicial independence while encouraging transparency and accountability.

2. Implementation of RTI exceptions : RTI exceptions should be implemented judiciously and only when essential to defend the independence or impartiality of the judiciary. Any exceptions should be based on objective grounds and open to judicial review.

In order to promote democratic governance and protect the rule of law, it is essential to strike a balance between the ideals of transparency and accountability and judicial independence. This demands careful evaluation of opposing interests and a willingness to developing solutions that respect the RTI rules and the judicial

Author: Tanya Khanijow, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.