Appeal seeking disclosure of Supreme Court Collegium's December 2018 Meeting dismissed by Delhi High Court
Appeal seeking disclosure of Supreme Court Collegium's December 2018 Meeting dismissed by Delhi High Court
The bench comprised of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge in relation to dismissing a plea seeking information regarding decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium in a meeting held on December 12, 2018.
It was observed by the Court that the observations made by the single judge did not require any interference and thus the appeal was dismissed.
Anjali Bhardwaj, appellant, had filed an RTI Application seeking information about SC's Collegium meet on December 12, 2018, wherein the then SC collegium, comprising former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court viz., Justice Madan B. Lokur, A.K Sikri, S.A Bobde and the current CJI N.V Ramana took certain decisions regarding the appointment of judges. However, since the decisions/details of the meeting were not uploaded on the SC website and in a subsequent meeting, the decisions were overturned, Bhardwaj moved an RTI application seeking details of the same.
The Court had reserved the order last week after hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Appellant, activist Anjali Bhardwaj.
Justice Yashwant Varma, vide order dated March 30, 2022, dismissed the plea after noting that the disclosures made by the respondents seemed to indicate that no resolution with respect to the agenda items was drawn by members who constituted the Collegium on 12 December 2018.
Bhushan had argued that the matter raised an important issue concerning the transparency in appointment of judges.
The main question which arose for consideration before the Court was whether the decision taken by Supreme Court Collegium regarding appointment of Judges to Top Court, which are required to be in writing and uploaded on the website, is not obliged to be provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act merely because the same is not incorporated in the resolution sent to the Government.
Placing reliance on the RTI Act, Bhushan argued that every information that exists with a public authority has to be disclosed the citizens, unless such information is exempted under Section 8 of the Act.
Perusing the Resolution passed by the Collegium, the Court observed that the Resolution indicates that reasons had to be provided on the website of the Supreme Court only in cases of initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) in the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of the High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices or Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court.
However, the Bench added, that for all other Collegium Resolutions, reasons were not to be uploaded on the website.
"A perusal of the Collegium Resolution dated 10.01.2019 indicates that the Collegium of the Apex Court met on 12.12.2018 to consider the names for appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court as well as to consider other proposals of transfer of Chief Justices of the High Courts. However, the required consultation could not be undertaken and completed as winter vacations intervened, and by the time the Courts reopened, the composition of the Collegium had undergone a change," the Court said.
It added "The Resolution dated 10.01.2019 also indicates that subsequent to the reopening of the Court, the newly constituted Collegium deemed it appropriate to consider the matter afresh and proposals were re-evaluated in light of the additional material that had become available. After further deliberations, Resolutions were passed on 10.01.2019."
