"No Evidentiary Value" : Delhi High Court Refuses To Accept Media Reports About Justice Lokur's Comments On December 2018 Collegium Meeting

The Delhi High Court has refused to accept the media reports about the statements made by former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur about the Supreme Court collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018, observing that they lack "evidentiary value".It observed that the Courts would be "clearly transgressing their well settled limitations" if cognizance were to be taken of such "unsubstantiated and unverified reports."The remarks were made by Justice Yashwant Varma while dismissing the plea filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj seeking the minutes and the resolution of the meeting held on December 12, 2018 by the supreme Court Collegium under the Right to Information Act and challenging the CIC's order, rejecting her plea.Represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, the petitioner referred to certain newspaper reports to cite statements purportedly made by Justice (Retd.) Madan Lokur, who was reported to have stated that certain decisions were taken in the meeting and had expressed disappointment that the same were not uploaded."The submissions addressed in the backdrop of certain newspaper reports are noticed only to be rejected since it is well settled that such reports are of no evidentiary value and Courts would be clearly transgressing their well settled limitations if cognizance were to be taken of such unsubstantiated and unverified reports," the Court said.Justice Madan B Lokur was part of the Collegium meeting of December 12, 2018, in which decisions were reportedly taken to recommend the elevation of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Rajendra Menon to the Supreme Court. However, after Justice Lokur's retirement, the Collegium revisited the earlier decisions.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" :"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" - stated the resolution of January 10, 2019.Justice Lokur, who had retired by then, had expressed disappointment at the Collegium revising its decision and also at the fact that the resolution of December 2018 was not uploaded."A meeting was held on December 12, 2018. Certain decisions were taken. But what happened between December 12 and January 10, I am not privy to that so I can't say. It does disappoint me that the resolution passed on December 12, 2018 wasn't put up in public domain. But why wasn't it put up is not my business," Justice Lokur had told the press.It added that there is no ground to doubt the disclosure made the Supreme Court that no resolution was drawn in the said meeting. It was argued by Bhushan that the Collegium had on 03 October 2017, unequivocally resolved that all decisions henceforth taken shall be posted on the website of the Court. He laid emphasis on the fact that the aforesaid decision was taken to ensure transparency, maintain confidentiality and inspire confidence in the collegium system.Bhushan had also argued that the disclosures made by the authorities clearly referred to certain decisions stated to have been taken by the Collegium on 12 December 2018. According to Bhushan, that in itself, would have warranted disclosure of requisite information to the petitioner. The Court noted 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."It becomes pertinent to observe that a "decision" taken by the collegium would necessarily have to be embodied in a "resolution" which is ultimately framed and signed by the Hon'ble members of that collective body. That resolution alone would represent the collective decision taken or the majoritarian view which prevailed and was adopted," the Court said.It noted,"The resolution of the Collegium of 10 January 2019 specifically records that although certain decisions were taken, since consultation could not be completed and the winter vacation of the Court intervened, the agenda items of 12 December 2018 were again deliberated upon by the Collegium on 5/6 January 2019 when it was decided that it would be appropriate that the proposals be re-evaluated in light of the additional material that had become available."The Court was thus of the view that there was no ground to doubt the disclosure made that no resolution was drawn and that no cogent material was placed on the record which convinced the Court to take a contrary view."From the aforesaid recitals of facts, it is manifest that, in the ...

"No Evidentiary Value" : Delhi High Court Refuses To Accept Media Reports About Justice Lokur's Comments On December 2018 Collegium Meeting

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

"No Evidentiary Value" : Delhi High Court Refuses To Accept Media Reports About Justice Lokur's Comments On December 2018 Collegium Meeting

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers