In what seems to be the first such instance, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi are on two different planes. While the prime minister is inclined to tinker with the Right to Information Act, Gandhi, who played a key role in getting the law in its present form, is unwilling to let that happen.

The issue at stake involves the office of the chief justice of India. Reports says the prime minister wants to keep the office of CJI out of the RTI’s purview. He is believed to have told Gandhi that it is necessary to amend the law to address the “concerns of the judiciary”. This followed Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan’s letter last November seeking exemption of his office from the purview of the law especially in matters relating to appointment of judges and other related administrative decisions.

When RTI activists got wind of it, they approached Sonia Gandhi, who promptly wrote to the prime minister opposing any such move. On the other hand, she suggested that the law should be properly implemented. The prime minister is now believed to have directed the DoPT, which administers the law, to consult all stakeholders in the matter before taking any further step.

This is not the first time the CJI has sought to protect his office and fellow judges. He didn’t want the judges to disclose their assets, saying that this would put unnecessary pressure on them. But some judges defied him and went on to declare their assets. The CJI had also sought protection through the Judges Assets Bill 2009, which the government tried to introduce in Rajya Sabha but was strongly opposed by other political parties forcing the government to withdraw it. This bill favoured disclosure of assets to the CJI, but this was not to be made public.

Thereafter, Chief Justice Balakrishnan got into a piquant position following the controversial decision by the apex court’s collegiums to elevate Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran to the Supreme Court. When evidence surfaced about encroachment of public land by Dinkaran, the CJI refused to act and strike off the controversial judge’s name. Now he wants a legal protection for his action which is perceived to be inappropriate.

The immediate concern of the CJI is the Delhi High Court’s judgment which brought his office under the purview of the RTI. He has time until March 12 to get the high court order challenged in the apex court.

RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal, on whose petition the high court had ruled that the office of CJI also came under the ambit of the transparency law, is not happy at the Prime Minister’s proposed move.