Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
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)
O R D E R
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.
Signature Not Verified
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