The fear of transparency is so embedded in the Indian system of administration that the Right to Information Act is often seen as a devilish instrument. A commitment to transparency would have automatically led to a more welcoming attitude towards the RTI Act. Often some ruse or excuse is found to keep certain offices and institutions outside the purview of the said act. It was thus important that the chief information commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah, reiterated the point — even though it seems somewhat self-evident to most people — that no constitutional authority is exempt from the RTI Act. The reiteration came in the context of a comment reportedly made by the chief justice, K.G. Balakrishnan. The latter apparently made the claim that the office of the chief justice was outside the RTI Act. Mr Balakrishnan said that the chief justice was not a public servant, but a constitutional authority and was therefore outside the act. Mr Habibullah was quick to point out to his lordship that the act covered all constitutional authorities. Mr Habibullah received strong, if gratuitous, support from the speaker of the Lok Sabha, Somnath Chatterjee.

This exchange would not have entered even an episodic history of contemporary India had it not involved the holder of the highest judicial office in the land and had it not appeared that the chief justice of India was trying to protect his office from the RTI Act. It needs to be pointed out that the RTI Act is not something from which an office or an institution needs protection. The free flow of information is an integral part of a democratic polity. Citizens have the right to know in detail how an institution functions. This is not to erode the authority or the position of the institution; rather it is to enrich that institution. In a democracy power flows from the citizens, and it follows that they should, individually and collectively, have access to information. It is difficult to understand what principled objection there can be to this position. Any office or institution that is dependent on funds provided by tax-payers should fall within the purview of the RTI Act. The distinction between a public servant and constitutional authority in such a context becomes an otiose and an irrelevant one. The RTI should be more inclusive than restrictive, and the Supreme Court should ensure that the act is adhered to without a single violation.