The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a …….(1)…..under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets. The judgment’s majority opinion, written by Justice SanjivKhanna, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that “disclosure is a facet of public interest”. In concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that judicial independence was not secured by secrecy while Justice N.V. Ramana argued for the need of a proper calibration of transparency in light of the importance of judicial independence. The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy. The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. While laying out the importance of the assessment of public interest in any RTI query besides bringing the office of the CJI under the purview of the Act, the decision has gone on to uphold the Delhi High Court verdict in 2010.
Q. Which of the following should replace…..(1)…… according to recent judgement of Supreme Court?
  • a)
    Public Authority    
  • b)
    Private authority 
  • c)
    Legal authority    
  • d)
    None of these
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Related Test

Can you answer this doubt?

People are searching for an answer to this question.
This discussion on The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a …….(1)…..under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets. The judgment’s majority opinion, written by Justice SanjivKhanna, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that “disclosure is a facet of public interest”. In concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that judicial independence was not secured by secrecy while Justice N.V. Ramana argued for the need of a proper calibration of transparency in light of the importance of judicial independence. The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy. The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. While laying out the importance of the assessment of public interest in any RTI query besides bringing the office of the CJI under the purview of the Act, the decision has gone on to uphold the Delhi High Court verdict in 2010.Q. Which of the following should replace…..(1)…… according to recent judgement of Supreme Court?a)Public Authority b)Private authorityc)Legal authority d)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? is done on EduRev Study Group by CLAT Students. The Questions and Answers of The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a …….(1)…..under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets. The judgment’s majority opinion, written by Justice SanjivKhanna, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that “disclosure is a facet of public interest”. In concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that judicial independence was not secured by secrecy while Justice N.V. Ramana argued for the need of a proper calibration of transparency in light of the importance of judicial independence. The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy. The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. While laying out the importance of the assessment of public interest in any RTI query besides bringing the office of the CJI under the purview of the Act, the decision has gone on to uphold the Delhi High Court verdict in 2010.Q. Which of the following should replace…..(1)…… according to recent judgement of Supreme Court?a)Public Authority b)Private authorityc)Legal authority d)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? are solved by group of students and teacher of CLAT, which is also the largest student community of CLAT. If the answer is not available please wait for a while and a community member will probably answer this soon. You can study other questions, MCQs, videos and tests for CLAT on EduRev and even discuss your questions like The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a …….(1)…..under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets. The judgment’s majority opinion, written by Justice SanjivKhanna, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that “disclosure is a facet of public interest”. In concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that judicial independence was not secured by secrecy while Justice N.V. Ramana argued for the need of a proper calibration of transparency in light of the importance of judicial independence. The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy. The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. While laying out the importance of the assessment of public interest in any RTI query besides bringing the office of the CJI under the purview of the Act, the decision has gone on to uphold the Delhi High Court verdict in 2010.Q. Which of the following should replace…..(1)…… according to recent judgement of Supreme Court?a)Public Authority b)Private authorityc)Legal authority d)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? over here on EduRev! Apart from being the largest CLAT community, EduRev has the largest solved Question bank for CLAT.
This discussion on The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a …….(1)…..under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets. The judgment’s majority opinion, written by Justice SanjivKhanna, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that “disclosure is a facet of public interest”. In concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that judicial independence was not secured by secrecy while Justice N.V. Ramana argued for the need of a proper calibration of transparency in light of the importance of judicial independence. The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy. The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. While laying out the importance of the assessment of public interest in any RTI query besides bringing the office of the CJI under the purview of the Act, the decision has gone on to uphold the Delhi High Court verdict in 2010.Q. Which of the following should replace…..(1)…… according to recent judgement of Supreme Court?a)Public Authority b)Private authorityc)Legal authority d)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? is done on EduRev Study Group by CLAT Students. The Questions and Answers of The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a …….(1)…..under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets. The judgment’s majority opinion, written by Justice SanjivKhanna, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that “disclosure is a facet of public interest”. In concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that judicial independence was not secured by secrecy while Justice N.V. Ramana argued for the need of a proper calibration of transparency in light of the importance of judicial independence. The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy. The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. While laying out the importance of the assessment of public interest in any RTI query besides bringing the office of the CJI under the purview of the Act, the decision has gone on to uphold the Delhi High Court verdict in 2010.Q. Which of the following should replace…..(1)…… according to recent judgement of Supreme Court?a)Public Authority b)Private authorityc)Legal authority d)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? are solved by group of students and teacher of CLAT, which is also the largest student community of CLAT. If the answer is not available please wait for a while and a community member will probably answer this soon. You can study other questions, MCQs, videos and tests for CLAT on EduRev and even discuss your questions like The welcome ruling by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the office of the Chief Justice of India is a …….(1)…..under the RTI Act, as much as the apex court itself, now enables the disclosure of information such as the judges’ personal assets. The judgment’s majority opinion, written by Justice SanjivKhanna, emphasised the need for transparency and accountability and that “disclosure is a facet of public interest”. In concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud asserted that judicial independence was not secured by secrecy while Justice N.V. Ramana argued for the need of a proper calibration of transparency in light of the importance of judicial independence. The Bench unanimously argued that the right to know under the RTI Act was not absolute and this had to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges. But the key takeaway from the judgment is that disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their right to privacy. The main opinion also argued that information related to issues such as judicial appointments will also be subject to the test of public interest and procedures mandated in the RTI Act that specify that views of third parties (in this case, judges) must be sought. While laying out the importance of the assessment of public interest in any RTI query besides bringing the office of the CJI under the purview of the Act, the decision has gone on to uphold the Delhi High Court verdict in 2010.Q. Which of the following should replace…..(1)…… according to recent judgement of Supreme Court?a)Public Authority b)Private authorityc)Legal authority d)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? over here on EduRev! Apart from being the largest CLAT community, EduRev has the largest solved Question bank for CLAT.