The Delhi High court on Monday reserved its order on a plea challenging the Central Information Commission (CIC) order and seeking the information under RTI regarding the agenda of the Supreme Court collegium meeting held on 12 December 2018.
Justice Yashwant Varma reserved the order after hearing the arguments of advocate Prashant Bhushan counsel for the petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj.
The petitioner had challenged the CIC's order of 16 December 2021 by which her second appeal was dismissed. The petitioner had sought direction to authorities to disclose the available information sought in the RTI application on 26 February 2019.
The petition stated that on January 23, 2019, Justice Madan B Lokur, who was one of the members of the collegium meeting of 12 December 2018 and was retired on 30 December that year, in an interview had expressed his disappointment that 12 December 2018 collegium meeting resolution was not uploaded on the Supreme Court website.
In the petition, Justice Lokur is quoted as having said, "Once we take certain decisions, they have to be uploaded".
In such circumstances, in the interest of transparency in the appointment in the judiciary, on 26 February 2019, the petitioner through an RTI application to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court sought a copy of the agenda, decisions, and resolution of the collegium meeting held on 12 December 2018.
However, the CPIO of the Supreme Court refused to provide the information. It was challenged before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). While disposing of the appeal the FAA had also dismissed it holding that in view of the subsequent collegium resolution of January 10, 2019, it was clear that though certain decisions were taken in the meeting of 12 December 2018, the required consultation could not be completed therefore no resolution was formally passed. Therefore the information sought could not be supplied to the petitioner, the plea said.
The petition stated that in the second appeal, the CIC dismissing it had relied on the resolution of 10 January 2019. It was also held that the copy of the decision and the resolution of 12 December 2018 did not exist on record and therefore could not be supplied to the petitioner.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor