The Times of India - Indian Newspapers in English Language from six editions.

The Times of India - Indian Newspapers in English Language from six editions.

Is the CJI a public servant?
22 Apr 2008, 0300 hrs IST,Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN

Print Save EMail Write to Editor

NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan's contention that the CJI was not a public servant but a constitutional authority flies in the face of a 1991 ruling by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court which held that all judges of the apex court and high courts were "public servants".

Justice Balakrishnan recently said, "The Chief Justice is not a public servant. He is a constitutional authority. RTI does not cover constitutional authorities." This assertion appears contrary to the ruling of the five-judge Bench, which by a 4:1 majority, held that "a judge of the high court or the Supreme Court is a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act".

The RTI Act had not been conceived at that time and the SC could not debate whether a person categorised as public servant under PC Act would retain his classification under the RTI Act.

In the judgment given on July 25, 1991, the apex court had rejected the plea of a former HC chief justice, K Veeraswamy, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him by the CBI for accumulating disproportionate assets during his tenure as CJ.

Justices K J Shetty, B C Ray, L M Sharma and M N Venkatachalliah unanimously came to the conclusion that all judges of the superior courts were "public servants".

Justice J S Verma dissented. "A judge or chief justice of a high court is a constitutional functionary, even though he holds a public office and in that sense, he may be included in the wide definition of a public servant."

He said that as there was no authority nominated in the PC Act to sanction prosecution of SC and HC judges, they could not be classified as public servants under the anti-corruption law.

The majority did not agree with Justice Verma. They said for sanctioning prosecution of a judge of the Supreme Court or high court in a corruption case, the President would be the competent authority, though no criminal case would be registered without first consulting the chief justice of the court where the judge was working.

"If the Chief Justice of India himself is the person against whom allegations of criminal misconduct are received, the government shall consult any other judge or judges of the Supreme Court," the majority verdict said.

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com