The Supreme Court has rushed to the High Court seeking stay on Central Information Commission’s May 2011 order allowing litigants to raise RTI queries on the logic behind judgements.
They also ask, How could the Supreme Court provide information under RTI on why particular order or judgement was passed that went beyond logic and reasoning given in that order or judgment.
Now this is interesting as the Supreme Court feels that it is above all and in no case its judgements be questioned. The Supreme Court feels that the Supreme Court Rules are the only way to mechanism to seek information. Now this is atrocious, RTI can expose the legislature, bureaucracy and all Central PSU’s as well. The big question is why not the Supreme Courts ?
This very attitude that they should not be subject to RTI and forced to disclose the reasoning and logic behind their judgements smells of “I am above all attitude” It is absolutely possible that the judge had erred in his judgement or for that matter had delivered the judgement by seeking illegal gratification. The RTI would have brutally exposed the erring judge and his flawed judgement.
Forcing the Litigants to seek redressal of some wrong doing by the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court rules itself is absurd and goes against the established legal principle, No person can be a judge in his own case. The RTI gives a much needed check and balance mechanism.
Now another interesting one, The Supreme Court has gone knocking the doors of High Court, which in hierarchy is its sub ordinate. Can we expect the High Court to act against its Superior Court ? Would it have the courage to deliver anything against the Supreme Court? Everything is absolutely weird and goes against common sense.
Yes your reasoning is right. But even if anyone finds fault in the judgement, what's the remedy? Appeal, Which is available now too. In any case, the judgement is accompanied by reasoning. So what is the logic in seeking for reasoning thro' RTI? I agree with the problem but not the remedy. Corruption in courts, has to be established in a separate way. Faulty reasoning in the judgement need not necessarily point towards corruption.
ReplyDeleteSurenmama.