It Has Become A Fashion For Former Members Of Supreme Court Collegium To Comment On Earlier Decisions: Justice MR Shah
On Friday, Supreme Court judge Justice MR Shah said that it has become a "fashion" for retired judges to comment about earlier decisions taken by the collegium of which they were a part of. "We don't want to comment on what former members (of the Supreme Court Collegium) say now. Nowadays, it has become a fashion to comment upon earlier decisions, when they were part of the Collegium. We...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
On Friday, Supreme Court judge Justice MR Shah said that it has become a "fashion" for retired judges to comment about earlier decisions taken by the collegium of which they were a part of.
"We don't want to comment on what former members (of the Supreme Court Collegium) say now. Nowadays, it has become a fashion to comment upon earlier decisions, when they were part of the Collegium. We don't want to say anything on that now", Justices MR Shah said.
The comment was made after Advocate Prashant Bhushan said that Retd. Justice Madan Lokur, who was part of the Supreme Court Collegium in 2018, had said that one of the body's decisions, should've been uploaded on the Supreme Court website.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar was considering a Special Leave Petition filed by RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj challenging a Delhi High Court Judgement that dismissed her plea for information under the Right to Information Act regarding decisions taken by the Collegium in a meeting dated December 12, 2018.
That day, the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court—Justices Madan B Lokur, AK Sikri, SA Bobde and NV Ramana took certain decisions regarding the appointment of judges. The meeting's details were not uploaded on the Court's website. Interestingly, later on, those decisions were overturned.
In the resolution of January 10, 2019, the Collegium recorded that the decision of December 12, 2018 was revisited "in the light of additional materials".
Beginning by giving a factual matrix of the case, Advocate Prashant Bhushan apprised the Bench that the petitioner was seeking three specific documents.
"The question is whether decision of the Collegium are amenable by the RTI. The subsequent meeting mentions the decision (taken on December 12)."
"It was not written. It was an oral decision", the Bench stated.
"Where do they say that it was not a written decision?" Bhushan asked.
The Bench said that it did not want to derail the existing system.
"Let the system which is functioning not be derailed. Collegium does not work on the basis on some busybody. Let us perform our duties and let the Collegium function according to its duties."
"We are most the most transparent Institution", Justice Shah said.
"In one of the petitioner's pleas, this Court has made a serious of directions about appointment of Information Officers, etc. Are the people of this country not entitled to know what decisions have been taken in a collegium meeting?" Bhushan stated.
Further, Bhushan urged the Supreme Court Public Information Officer to say that the December 12 meeting had no written decision.
"Is the Supreme Court immune from the Right to Information Act?" Bhushan continued with his arguments.
Bhushan relied on Supreme Court cases—Raj Narrain and SP Gupta- to say that Right to Information is a fundamental right. In the spirit of the making arguments, Bhushan's voice went slightly louder than usual.
This prompted the Court to remark that raising his voice wouldn't sit well with the Court.
After tendering an apology, Bhushan continued with his submissions.
"The cases state that all correspondences between the Chief Justice and the government and between Chief Justices should be available to the people under the RTI. That's a fundamental right. The Act defines information very widely. It says information means any material in any form including records, documents, memos, emails, advises, press releases, circulars, orders etc."
It would have been understandable if the CPIO said there was no recorded decision, stated Bhushan.
As the hearing concluded, the Bench reserved its order.
Background
After Anjali Bhardwaj moved an RTI application seeking details of the Collegium's decision on December 12, 2018, the Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court denied it, citing sections 8(1) (b), (e), and (J) of the RTI Act.
There after, Bhardwaj had moved before the First Appellate Authority under the Act. It upheld the decision of the PIO while adding that the reasons given by the CPIO to deny the information were improper.
Challenging this, Bhardwaj moved an appeal before the Central Information Commission, contending that even if no resolution had been passed on December 12, 2018, a copy of the meeting's agenda and the decisions taken therein could not have been denied without citing any exemptions.
The CIC upheld the denial of information by the Appellate Authority while stating that the final outcome of the meeting was discussed in the subsequent resolution of January 10, 2019.
In this backdrop, a plea was filed before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, referring to an interview by Justice (Retd.) Madan Lokur (in January 2019) expressing his disappointment on the Collegium resolution of December 2018 not being uploaded. A single bench of the High Court dismissed the plea in March 2022, refusing to place reliance on the media reports regarding Justice Lokur's comments.
This order was unsuccessfully appealed before a Division Bench of the High Court. Assailing that order, the petitioner moved the Top Court.
Case Title: Anjali Bhardwaj vs CPIO, SC (RTI Cell) SLP (C) No. 21019/2022