Delhi High Court
Anjali Bhardwaj vs Cpio, Supreme Court Of India on 30 March, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 28 March 2022
Judgment pronounced on: 30 March 2022
+ W.P.(C) 4129/2022 & CM APPL. 12346/2022
ANJALI BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Rahul
Gupta, Advs.
versus
CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
JUDGMENT
1. The writ petitioner has challenged the order of 16 December 2021
passed by the Central Information Commission on a second appeal which
was preferred. The appeal itself was directed against a response which was
proffered by the competent authority for the petitioner being provided the
minutes and the resolution of the meeting of the Collegium of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court stated to have been held on 12 December 2018. The
respondents have apprised the petitioner that although certain decisions
were taken by the Hon'ble Members of the Collegium on 12 December
2018, however, since required consultation could not be completed, the
agenda items of the aforesaid meeting were taken up for discussion again
by the Collegium on 5/6 January 2019 when it resolved for the proposals
being considered afresh in light of the additional material that had become
available. In light of the aforesaid disclosures that were made, the Chief
Information Commissioner held that in the absence of any resolution being
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:30.03.2022
12:57:19
passed in the meeting held on 12 December 2018, the petitioner has been
correctly advised that in the absence of available information, no disclosure
can possible be made.
2. Assailing the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Bhushan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, would contend that undisputedly the Collegium
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had on 03 October 2017, unequivocally
resolved that all decisions henceforth taken shall be posted on the website
of the Court. Emphasis is laid on the fact that the aforesaid decision was
taken to ensure transparency, maintain confidentiality and inspire
confidence in the collegium system. Mr. Bhushan would contend that the
disclosures made by the respondents clearly refer to certain "decisions"
stated to have been taken by the Collegium on 12 December 2018.
According to Mr. Bhushan, that in itself, would warrant disclosure of
requisite information to the petitioner.
3. The attention of the Court is drawn to the fact that by the time the
Collegium reconvened on 10 January 2019, one of the Hon'ble members
who had attended the meeting of 12 December 2018, had demitted office.
It is contended that the newspaper reports have referred to certain
statements attributed to have been made by one of the said Hon'ble member
of the Collegium who is reported to have stated that certain decisions were,
in fact, taken and had expressed disappointment that the same had not been
uploaded. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Mr. Bhushan submits that the
decision impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. It becomes relevant to note that the decision of 03 October 2017
taken by the Collegium when read holistically indubitably refers to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:30.03.2022
12:57:19
requirement of all decisions taken by it to be published on the website of
the Supreme Court. The collegium, undisputedly, is a multi-member body
whose decisions stand embodied in resolutions that may be ultimately
drawn and signed. The disclosures made by the respondents when read
carefully seem 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.
5. It would appear that since the issues which arose for discussion
remained unresolved or at least in an inchoate state, no formal resolution
came to be drawn up. Those very agenda items were again taken up for
consideration on 10 January 2019. 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.
6. The Court finds no ground to doubt the disclosure made that no
resolution was drawn. At least no cogent material has been placed on the
record which may convince the Court to take a contrary view.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:30.03.2022
12:57:19
7. From the aforesaid recitals of facts, it is manifest that, in the absence
of any formal resolution coming to be adopted and signed by the Hon'ble
members of the Collegium on 12 December 2018, the respondents have
rightly taken the position that there was absence of material that was liable
to be disclosed.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, and for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition along
with pending application fails and shall stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
MARCH 30, 2022/bh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEHA
Signing Date:30.03.2022
12:57:19
