Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 897
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Anjali Bhardwaj - Appellant
Versus
Cpio, Supreme Court Of India - Respondent
LPA 442/2022& CM APPLS.32067/2022, 32068/2022, 32069/2022
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Cheryl D' Souza, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant
The main legal point established is that decisions allegedly taken on 12.12.2018 were re-evaluated and resolutions were passed on 10.01.2019, and no resolution was drawn on 12.12.2018, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Information Disclosure - 03.10.2017, 10.01.2019 - The Collegium resolved to put decisions on the website of the Supreme Court only in specific cases. The decisions taken on 12.12.2018 were re-evaluated and resolutions were passed on 10.01.2019. The court found no reason to differ from the orders passed by the authorities below.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information from the Supreme Court, which was rejected citing sub-judice matters and a stay on disclosure of information. The appellant's appeals were dismissed, leading to a writ petition before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decisions allegedly taken on 12.12.2018 were re-evaluated and resolutions were passed on 10.01.2019. It held that no resolution was drawn on 12.12.2018, and therefore, no interference was required with the orders of the authorities below and the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the RTI application, the stay on disclosure of information, and the re-evaluation of decisions taken on 12.12.2018.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the fact that no resolution was drawn on 12.12.2018, and the decisions were re-evaluated and resolutions were passed on 10.01.2019. It found no reason to differ from the orders passed by the authorities below.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with the above observations, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the Order dated 30.03.2022, passed by a single Judge of this Court in Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India,W.P.(C) 4129/2022, by which the learned Single Judgedismissed the writ petition which had been filed challenging the Order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Central Information Commission in a Second Appeal No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2019/642099.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present appeal are as follows:-
i. The Appellant herein preferred an RTI application dated 26.02.2019, seeking the following information from the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India:-
'1. Please provide a copy of the agenda of the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.
2. Kindly provide a copy of the decisions taken on the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.
3. Kindly provide a copy of the resolutions of the Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018.'
ii. The said application was rejected videreply letter dated 11.03.2022 stating that the issue of providing information relating to the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court was the subject matter of judicial proceedings in Civil Appeal No. 10044-45/2010,and, therefore, the matter was sub-judice.
iii. It was further stated that in terms of the Order dated 04.12.2009, passed by the Apex Court in Central Public Information Officer & Anr. v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, SLP (C) No. 328555-56/2009, there was a stay on disclosure of information relating to such matters, and that disclosure of information in this regard would amount to contempt of court.
iv. The said Order was challenged by the Appellant herein before the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act') in Appeal No. 75/2019. The said appeal was disposed of vide Order dated 23.04.2019.
v. The First Appellate Authority while dismissing the Appellant's first appeal, placed reliance on a Resolution passed by the Apex Court on 10.01.2019, wherein it was stated that though certain decisions were taken on 12.12.2018, however, the required consultation could not be completed as winter vacation intervened, and as no Resolution had been passed, there was no question of supplying any information.
vi. The Order passed by the First Appellate Authority was challenged in a Second Appeal which was rejected by the Central Information Commission vide Order dated 16.12.2021, upholding the Order of the First Appellate Authority.
vii. The Appellant thereafter filed a Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 4129/2022 before this Court.The learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 30.03.2022 in W.P.(C) 4129/2022, noticed that the issues which arose for discussion in the Collegium Resolution on 12.12.2018, remained unresolved and no formal Resolution had been drawn up. The very same agenda items were taken up for consideration on 10.01.2019.
viii. The learned Single Judge held that the Resolution of the Collegium on 10.01.2019 specifically records that although certain decisions were taken, since consultation could not be completed and the winter vacation of the Court intervened, the agenda items of 12.12.2018 had again been deliberated upon by the Collegium on 5-6.01.2019, wherein the proposals were re-evaluated in light of the additional material that had become available,and Resolutions were passed on 10.01.2019. The learned Single Judge, therefore, found no reason to differ from the Orders passed by the three authorities below.
ix. This order of the learned Single Judge of this Court is under challenge in the instant appeal.
3. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, places reliance on a Resolution dated 03.10.2017, wherein the Collegium resolved that decisions taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons would be put on the website of the Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the Resolution dated 03.10.2017 has been reproduced as under:-
" The Collegium has resolved:
