Upholding the Delhi High Court verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India(CJI) comes under the Right To Information (RTI) Act. According to the court,the judges coming under the RTI Act won't undermine the judiciary.

Observing that public interest demands that transparency is maintained, the apex court ruled that judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the apex court said. The verdict was pronounced by a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and comprising Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna.

The judgement was reserved on April 4 on appeals filed in2010 by secretary general of the Supreme Court and its central public information officer challenging the Delhi High Court and the Central Information Commission's (CIC's) orders.The court had observed that the judiciary cannot be destroyed for the sake of transparency, though insistingthat nobody wants a system of opaqueness. The bench had said, "Nobodywants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the same...but, thequestion which is before us is that in the name of transparency, you can`tdestroy the institution."

In 2010, in an unprecedented judgement, the Delhi High Courthad ruled the RTI is applicable to the Chief Justice. The High Court observedthat judicial independence was not a judge's privilege, but a responsibilitycast upon him. This judgement was construed as a personal attack on the thenChief Justice KG Balakrishnan, who had objected to divulging information inconnection with judges under the RTI Act.RTI activist SC Agrawal initiated theproceedings to bring the Chief Justice office under the transparency law.Prashant Bhushan, representing Agarwal, had contended in the apex court the topcourt should not judge its own cause.Bhushan insisted that the judiciary shouldnot object to divulging the information, as the judges do not exist indifferent universe, and instead support transparency. He had said the publicinterest should be prioritized in comparison with personal interests if theperson concerned is holding a public office.

Bhushan insisted the judiciary is not free from "publicscrutiny". He had also pointed out at the deliberations of the SupremeCourt Collegium to be brought under the RTI on a case-to-case basis keeping inmind public interest.

Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal, who was representingSupreme Court`s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), had submitted thatsharing information connected with Collegium, which is under the CJI office,would make judges and the government shy and destroy judicial independence. TheCPIO is the authority tasked to respond to RTI queries related to the court.

The issue arose from an appeal filed by the Supreme CourtSecretary-General against the January 2010 judgement of the Delhi High Courtthat declared the CJI`s office a "public authority" within themeaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.