JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J. —

Special Leave Petition (c) Nos. 32855 of 2009

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24th November, 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) whereby and whereunder the CIC having allowed the appeal preferred by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, respondent herein, directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India to furnish information as sought by him.

3. The respondent Subhash Chandra Agarwal requested the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to arrange to send him a copy of “complete file/s (only as available in Supreme Court) inclusive of copies of complete correspondence exchanged between concerned constitutional authorities with file notings relating to said appointment of Mr. Justice HL Dattu, Mr. Justice AK Ganguly and Mr. Justice RM Lodha superseding seniority of Mr. Justice P Shah, Mr. Justice AK Patnaik and Mr. Justice VK Gupta as allegedly objected to Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) also”. He further requested the CPIO not to invoke Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act (for short `the Act’).

4. The CPIO, Supreme Court of India promptly replied to the application so filed under the said Act duly informing the respondent that the Registry does not deal with the matters pertaining to the appointment of Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India. Appointments of Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are made by the President of India as per the procedure prescribed by law and the matters relating thereto are not dealt with and handled by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India. The CPIO accordingly informed the respondent that the information sought by him is “neither maintained nor available in the Registry”.

5. The respondent Subhash Chandra Agrawal preferred appeal before the appellate authority of the Supreme Court of India challenging the said order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the CPIO. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a further appeal before the CIC purported it to be under Section 19 of the Act. The CIC having set aside the orders passed by the authorities, directed the CPIO, Supreme Court to furnish the information sought by the respondent. It is that order which is under challenge before us.

6. The CIC mainly relied upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 288 of 2009 titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Of course, the CIC also relied on the decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India,1 (1981) Supp SCC 87.

7. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the appellants while placing strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India,2 (1993) 4 SCC 441 inter alia submitted that the ratio of the decision in S.P. Gupta (supra) is required to be understood and appreciated in the light of the observations made by this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association inasmuch as S.P.Gupta’s case has been explained by the larger Bench. The submission was that disclosure of the information sought for by the respondent cannot be furnished in public interest. It is in the public interest to keep the appointment and transfer from “needless intrusions by strangers and busybodies in the functioning of the judiciary”. Learned Attorney General placed particular reliance on the following paragraph of the said decision.

“This is also in accord with the public interest of excluding these appointments and transfers from litigative debate, to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision. The growing tendency of needless intrusion by strangers and busybodies in the functioning o