Collegium Meeting: CIC Rejects Appeal Seeking Disclosure of Collegium Meeting on December,12,2018
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The CIC in a decision dated December 16, 2021 has upheld the denial of information regarding the decisions taken by the collegium of the Supreme Court in a meeting held on December 12, 2018. The then SC collegium, comprising the Chief Justice of India Justice Gogoi and four seniors most Judges of the Supreme Court viz. Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, A.K Sikri, S.A Bobde and N.V Ramana met on 12th December, 2018 and took certain decisions regarding appointment of judges. However, in a departure from the norm, the decisions were not uploaded on the SC website and in a subsequent meeting, the decisions were overturned.
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.
According to the autobiography ‘Justice for the Judge’ the names of Justice Pradeep Nandra jog, 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 for the Supreme Court in the collegium meeting.
The matter allegedly got leaked after which issue was kept in abeyance by Justice Gogoi till January,2019 because of which winter break started on December 15,2018, the book said.
The new collegium in its resolution on January 10,2019 did not clear the names of those Judges for elevation to Supreme Court, according to the book.
The agenda and decision were not made public.
On 26/2/2019, an application was filed under the RTI Act, seeking the following information-
- “Please provide a copy of the agenda of the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.
- Kindly provide a copy of the decisions taken on the meeting of the Collegium of the Supreme Court held on December 12, 2018.
- Kindly provide a copy of the resolutions of the Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018.”
The PIO vide reply dated March 11, 2019 denied information citing section 8(1)(b), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority set aside the grounds cited by the CPIO for denying information but upheld the denial of information as the Appellate Authority concluded that no resolutions had been passed by the collegium on December 12, 2018. The relevant extract from the order of the First Appellate Authority is given below:
“…It is thus clear that though certain decisions were taken on 12th December, 2018, the required consultation could not be taken and completed and, therefore, their arises no question of passing any Resolution by the Collegium on 12th December, 2018 as claimed by appellant. In absence of any such resolution, the information could not be supplied to her.
In the circumstances, it appears that though the reasons given by CPIO to deny information were not proper, the denial of information is fully justified. In that sense, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The application filed by appellant seeking aforesaid information stands rejected for the reasons mentioned herein above.”
An appeal was filed to the CIC in June 2019 against denial of information citing that even if no resolutions were passed in that particular meeting, the copy of the agenda and the decisions of the meeting held on December 12, 2018 sought under the RTI Act had been denied without citing any exemptions under section 8. Further, it was highlighted that there was public interest in the disclosure of information sought.
The matter was heard by the CIC in December 2021 (30 months after the second appeal was filed). In its decision the CIC has upheld the denial of information by concurring with the views of the first appellate authority. However, the CIC has failed to adjudicate on point 2 of the RTI application vide which a copy of the decisions of the collegium taken in its meeting on December 12, 2018 have been sought. It is clear that certain decisions were indeed taken by the collegium in its meeting on December 12, 2018- this is confirmed both via the order of the first appellate authority and also the publicly available resolution of the subsequent meeting of the collegium held on January 10, 2019 wherein it is noted, “The then Collegium on 12th December, 2018 took certain decisions.” However, neither the first appellate authority, nor the CIC have dealt with this point and no reasons have been provided for denying a copy of the decisions. Relevant extract of the CIC decision is given below:
“On perusal of the resolution dated 10.01.2019 it is clear that the agenda for the meeting dated 12.12.2018 has been mentioned therein which answers point no 1 of the instant RTI application. With regard to the remaining points, the Commission concurs with the order of the FAA dated 23.04.2019 and holds that in the absence of any resolution passed in the meeting dated 12.12.2018, no available information as per Section 2 (f) exists on record which can be disclosed to the Appellant. Furthermore, the final outcome of the fate of the meeting dated 12.12.2018 has been discussed in the resolution dated 10.01.2019. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed of accordingly.”
In her appeal before the first appellate authority of the SC, Bhardawaj said there was no reason why decision of December 12, 2018 meeting were not uploaded on the apex court website.
She further said that she was not seeking the third-party information she is seeking resolutions of the Supreme Court collegium which are other wise placed in the public domain.
