Anjali Bhardwaj vs Cpio, Supreme Court Of India, (Rti Cell)

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 21019 of 2022

Anjali Bhardwaj ...Appellant(S)

Versus

CPIO, Supreme Court of India, (RTI Cell) ...Respondent(S)

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

Signature Not Verified petition for Special Leave to Appeal. Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2022.12.09 15:43:23 IST Reason: 1

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

2 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

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,

4 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 12.12.2018. It is submitted

that everybody has a right to know the decision(s) taken by

the Collegium even as per the earlier Resolution of the

Supreme Court dated 03.10.2017, by which, it was

resolved that the decision(s) taken by the Collegium shall

be uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website.

4. We have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner at length.

5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner

asked for the information on the decision(s) taken by the

Collegium in its meeting held on 12.12.2018. Reliance is

placed upon the Resolution dated 03.10.2017, by which, it

was resolved to upload the decision/resolution of the

Collegium on Supreme Court’s website. Relying upon some

article published in the media and the interview given by

5 one of the members of the Collegium who was part of the

Collegium held on 12.12.2018, it is asserted by the

petitioner that in fact some decision(s) were taken by the

Collegium on the elevation of two Chief Justices of the

High Courts to the Supreme Court. However, from the

subsequent Resolution passed by the Collegium on

10.01.2019, it appears that as such no final decision was

taken on the elevation to the Supreme Court. Some

discussions might have taken place. But unless and until,

a final decision is taken after due consultation and on the

basis of such a final decision a final resolution is drawn,

whatever discussions had taken place cannot be said to be

a final decision of the Collegium. The actual resolution

passed by the Collegium only can be said to be a final

decision of the Collegium and till then at the most, it can

be said to be a tentative decision during the consultation.

It is to be noted that a final decision is taken by the

Collegium only after due consultation. During the

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 the Collegium.

6 Collegium is a multi­member body whose decision

embodied in the resolution that may be formally drawn up

and signed. When in the subsequent Resolution dated

10.01.2019, it is specifically mentioned that in the earlier

meeting held on 12.12.2018 though some decisions were

taken but ultimately the consultation was not completed

and concluded and therefore, the matter/agenda items

was/were adjourned. Therefore, as no final decision was

taken which was culminated into a final resolution drawn

and signed by all the members of the Collegium, the same

was not required to be disclosed in the public domain and

that too under the RTI Act. Whatever is discussed shall not

be in the public domain. As per the Resolution dated

03.10.2017 only the final resolution and the final decision

is required to be uploaded on the Supreme Court’s

website.

5.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon some of the news

item/article published in the media in which views of one

of the members of the Collegium is noted, is concerned, we

do not want to comment upon the same. The subsequent

7 Resolution dated 10.01.2019 is very clear in which it is

specifically stated that in the earlier meeting held on

12.12.2018, the process for consultation was not over and

remained un­concluded. At the cost of repetition, it is

observed that after due deliberation and discussion and

after completing the consultative process, when a final

decision is taken and thereafter, the resolution is drawn

and signed by the members of the Collegium can be said to

be a final decision and till then it remains the tentative

decision. Only after the final resolution is drawn and

signed by the members of the Collegium, which is always

after completing the due procedure and the process of

discussion/deliberations and consultation, the same

required to be published on the Supreme Court website as

per Resolution dated 03.10.2017.

5.2 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no

reliance can be placed on the news report and/or some

article in the media. What is required to be seen is the

final resolution which is ultimately drawn and signed by

the members of the Collegium.

8

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

there is no substance in the present Special Leave to

Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is

accordingly dismissed.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 09, 2022.

9