LPA 442/2022

Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 27^thJULY, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

+

LPA 442/2022& CM APPLS.32067/2022, 32068/2022, 32069/2022

ANJALI BHARDWAJ

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms.Cheryl

D' Souza, Mr.Lalit Kumar, Advocates

versus

CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

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:-

2022:DHC:2808-DB

LPA 442/2022

Page 2 of 6

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.

2022:DHC:2808-DB

LPA 442/2022

Page 3 of 6

vi.

TheOrder 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