By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission has dismissed an RTI appeal seeking the agenda of the Supreme Court collegium meeting on December 12, 2018, which has been referred to by former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in his recent autobiography.
According to the autobiography ‘Justice for the Judge’, the names of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, the then Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, and Justice Rajendra Menon, the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, had received nod for the elevation to the Supreme Court in the collegium meeting on December 12, 2018.
The matter allegedly got leaked after which the issue was kept in abeyance by Justice Gogoi till January, 2019 because of winter break which started on December 15, 2018, the book said.
In January 2019, a new collegium got constituted, after the retirement of Justice Madan Lokur.
The new collegium in its resolution on January 10, 2019 did not clear the names of Justice Nandrajog and Justice Menon for elevation to the Supreme Court, according to the book.
The agenda of and decisions taken at the meeting on December 12, 2018 were not made public.
Activist Anjali Bhardwaj through her RTI petition filed before the Supreme Court wanted copies of the agenda, decisions taken and resolutions passed in the December 12, 2018 meeting.
The Supreme Court Central Public Information Officer refused information, citing a stay granted by the apex court on the disclosure of issues such as appointment of judges.
It also cited exemption clauses Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, saying disclosure may result in contempt of court, and 8(1)(e) (information held in fiduciary capacity) and 8(1)(j) (information being personal in nature) to deny the information.
In her appeal before the first appellate authority of the SC, Bhardwaj said there was no reason why decisions of December 12, 2018 meeting were not uploaded on the apex court website.
She said she was not seeking third party information but is seeking resolutions of the Supreme Court collegium which are otherwise placed in the public domain.
The first appellate authority (FAA) referred to the resolution passed on January 10, 2019 meeting of the collegium where a reference was made to the December 12 meeting.
“The Collegium comprising the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court viz.Mr.Justices Madan B.Lokur, A.K.Sikri, S.A.Bobde and N.V.Ramana met on Wednesday, 12th December, 2018 to discuss the Agenda viz., (1) to consider and recommend names for appointment as Judges in the Supreme Court and (2) to consider proposals for transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts.”
“The then Collegium on 12th December, 2018 took certain decisions. However, the required consultation could not be undertaken and completed as the winter vacation of the Court intervened. By the time the Court re-opened, the composition of the Collegium underwent a change. After extensive deliberations on 5th / 6th January, 2019, the newly constituted Collegium deemed it appropriate to have a fresh look at the matter and also to consider the proposals in the light of the additional material that became available,” the Supreme Court FAA order said, citing relevant portion of the collegium resolution on January 10, 2019.
The question that required answer is whether on December 12, 2018 resolutions were passed by the collegium of the Supreme Court as claimed by Bhardwaj, it said.
“The answer finds place in the resolution passed by Collegium on January 10, 2019 which is published on Supreme Court website,” the FAA order said.
Bhardwaj approached the Central Information Commission challenging the order of FAA of the Supreme Court.
After hearing both sides, Chief Information Commissioner Y K Sinha held that it is clear that the agenda of December 12, 2018 meeting of the collegium has been mentioned in the resolution dated January 10, 2019, which answered demand for the agenda of the meeting.
“The Commission concurs with the order of the FAA and holds that in the absence of any resolution passed in the meeting dated December 12, 2018, no available information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act exists on record which can be disclosed to the appellant,” Sinha said.
He said the outcome of the fate of the meeting held on December 12, 2018 has been discussed in the resolution dated January 10, 2019, hence no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
