There was a twofold motivation behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act: first, to build a transparent and open society, putting to test the concept of governmental accountability and erasing bureaucratic corruption, and second, to uphold the right of the citizen to know. It has not been smooth sailing so far where the RTI's implementation is concerned. Questions have been raised regarding its target applicability and the content of information sought by the citizens. Answers are being sought and provided at various levels. It is just as well, therefore, that an opportunity has arisen to clear the air over another doubt in respect of the target applicability of the RTI. Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan told the media on Friday that he himself and judges of the Supreme Court were not public servants "in the strict sense" but constitutional authorities and hence were out of the RTI's ambit. Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has entered a caveat. Arguing that the RTI does not distinguish between constitutional functionaries and ordinary citizens, he points out that the RTI recognises the constitutional position of the people's right to know in a democracy. Denial of information has the potential of impairing the credibility of the institution (in this case, the judiciary), and that nothing should be hidden from the people. He himself had conceded the RTI's applicability to MPs even to the extent of making available "secret" information concerning their assets and liabilities. The question is whether or not constitutional functionaries are public servants. Chief Justice Balakrishnan's contention is they are not. The Supreme Court itself seems to hold a contrary view: a five-judge bench had ruled in a 4:1 majority verdict on July 25, 1991 that a judge of the high court or Supreme Court is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The RTI had not been conceived of at that time. But the majority disagreed with the stand of the dissenting judge that as there was no specific authority nominated in the PoC Act for sanctioning the prosecution of judge(s) they could not be classified as public servants. The majority maintained that when in doubt the President would discharge that function in consultation with the chief justice of the concerned court. We are inclined to agree with the Speaker's view that consistent with the RTI's ultimate objective of establishing a transparent society in an environment of public accountability, nothing should be kept back from the people. If the constitutional functionary is above board, he ought to be the first to welcome the release to the public of every kind of information relevant to the query.

© Copyrights 2006 Asian Age.