Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1228
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Anjali Bhardwaj - Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell) - Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21019 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2022
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv. Ms./Mr. Cheryl D’Souza, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Right to Information – No reliance can be placed on news report and/or some article in Media. What is required to be seen is final resolution which is ultimately drawn and signed by members of Collegium.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 8 – Right to Information – Exemption – Petitioner asked for information on decision(s) taken by Collegium in its meeting held on 12.12.2018 – Final decision is taken by Collegium only after due consultation – During consultation if some discussion takes place but no final decision is taken and no resolution is drawn, it cannot be said that any final decision is taken by Collegium – Collegium is a multi-member body whose decision embodied in resolution that may be formally drawn up and signed – As no final decision was taken which was culminated into a final resolution drawn and signed by all members of Collegium, same was not required to be disclosed in public domain and that too under RTI Act – Whatever is discussed shall not be in public domain – Special Leave to Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 442/2022, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said LPA and has confirmed judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 4129/2022, the original writ petitioner – original applicant has preferred the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
Findings of Court:
No reliance can be placed on news report and/or some article in Media. What is required to be seen is final resolution which is ultimately drawn and signed by members of Collegium.
Result : Special Leave to Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 442/2022, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said LPA and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4129/2022, the original writ petitioner – original applicant has preferred the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal in a nutshell are as under:-
2.1 That the petitioner herein preferred an RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India. The petitioner sought the following information :-
(i) Please provide a copy of the agenda of the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.
(ii) Kindly provide a copy of the decisions taken on the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.
(iii) Kindly provide a copy of the resolutions of the Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018.
2.2 Vide communication dated 11.03.2019 the prayer of the petitioner came to be turned down. That thereafter the petitioner preferred the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 being Appeal No. 75/2019. The First Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal by observing that as such there was no final decision(s) taken in the Collegium meeting held on 12.12.2018 and there was no final decision which culminated into the resolution and therefore, in absence of such resolution the information need not be supplied. The appellant preferred second appeal which also came to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge also dismissed Writ Petition No. 4129/2022 by reiterating that in the Collegium meeting held on 12.12.2018 there was no final decision taken and even as observed in the subsequent resolution meeting held on 10.01.2019, it was so stated that the then Collegium on 12.12.2018 took certain decisions, however, the required consultation could not be undertaken and completed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that as there was no formal resolution came to be drawn up, there is no question of providing any decision taken in the meeting held on 12.12.2018. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner preferred the present petition.
3. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in fact certain decisions were taken by the Collegium in the meeting held on 12.12.2018 and therefore, the decisions which were taken, were required to be uploaded in the public domain and the decisions which were taken by the Collegium in the meeting held on 12.12.2018 were required to be informed and the particulars of which are required to be given under the RTI Act.
3.1 Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon one article published on the website of the Bar and Bench wherein it was mentioned that one of the members of the Collegium stated that he was disappointed that decision taken in the meeting on 12.12.2018 was not uploaded on Supreme Court’s website. It is submitted that as per the information disclosed in the Press by one of the members of the Collegium, who was part of the meeting dated 12.12.2018, it was specifically stated that certain decisions were taken, however, in the subsequent meeting of the Collegium on 10.01.2019 earlier decisions were changed. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that therefore, it may not be accepted that no decision(s) was/were taken in the Collegium meeting held on 12.12.
