Raising the bar

Wednesday���s ruling by the Delhi High Court is a blow for Indian democracy. In ruling that all power, including judicial power, is accountable to the highest law of the land ��� the Constitution ��� the court has restored the faith of the public in the judiciary. We are entirely with Justice S Ravindra Bhat when he says, ���Holders of power are expected to live by the standards they set, interpret or enforce, at least to the extent their office demands.��� Indeed, we would go even further and say the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution demands unequivocal adherence to the principle that ���holders of power must live by the standards they set, interpret or enforce,��� without any riders on ���the extent of their office���. We also concur with the court���s view that the Chief Justice of India is a ���public authority��� for the purpose of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The ruling, which came in the context of an appeal filed against a Central Information Commission order asking the Supreme Court to furnish information on judges��� assets under the RTI Act, is likely to be challenged. But it would be difficult for any bench to dispute the basic soundness of the argument that, ���declaring personal assets is an essential ingredient of contemporary acceptable behaviour���. We would urge the government and the apex court to accept the ruling with grace. Yes, it is true there could be frivolous petitions. More importantly, such petitions could be used to pressurise the judiciary. But only if the judiciary has something to hide! If assets have been acquired honestly, as is case with most of our judiciary, there is no reason why any member of the judiciary should fear. Judges, moreover, are expected to dispense justice without fear or favour. If the Italian mafia today is a pale shadow of what it once was, the credit goes to judges like Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellini who refused to be cowed down by threats and paid with their lives. That might be an extreme example. But the point is fear of threats cannot be a reason for lack of transparency. The judiciary, like Ceasar���s wife, must not only be above suspicion, but must also be seen to be as such.