Anjali Bhardwaj v. Cpio, Supreme Court of India, (rti Cell)
In short. The case involves Anjali Bhardwaj (the petitioner) seeking information from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court of India regarding the decisions made during a Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018. The petitioner’s request was denied on the grounds that no formal resolutions were made during that meeting. The High Court of Delhi upheld this denial, leading the petitioner to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, affirming the lower court's decision that no final decisions were taken in the meeting, thus no information was required to be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Facts
The petitioner filed an RTI application requesting copies of the agenda, decisions, and resolutions from the Supreme Court Collegium meeting on December 12, 2018. The CPIO rejected the request, stating that there were no final decisions made during that meeting. The petitioner appealed this decision, but the First Appellate Authority and subsequently the Single Judge of the High Court also dismissed the appeals, confirming that no formal resolutions were drawn up. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this dismissal, prompting the petitioner to seek special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioner, represented by counsel Prashant Bhushan, argued that decisions were indeed made during the Collegium meeting and that these decisions should be made public as per the RTI Act. The petitioner emphasized the importance of transparency in judicial appointments and referenced an article suggesting that a member of the Collegium expressed disappointment over the lack of public disclosure of the decisions made. The court, however, found that the absence of formal resolutions meant that there was no information to disclose.
Respondent Arguments
The respondent, represented by the CPIO, maintained that the Collegium did not reach any final decisions during the meeting in question. The argument was that without formal resolutions, there was no obligation under the RTI Act to provide the requested information. The court agreed with this position, emphasizing the procedural requirement for formal resolutions to exist before any information could be disclosed.
Precedents considered
While the judgment does not explicitly cite precedents, it relies on established principles of the RTI Act, particularly regarding the definition of "information" and the necessity of formal resolutions for disclosure. The court's reasoning aligns with previous interpretations of the RTI Act that emphasize the need for documented decisions to fulfill disclosure obligations.
Legal principles
The court considered the legal principle that information under the RTI Act must pertain to formal decisions or resolutions. The absence of such resolutions from the Collegium meeting meant that the information requested did not meet the criteria for disclosure. The court also highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the decision-making process within the judiciary.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that the lack of formal resolutions from the Collegium meeting on December 12, 2018, precluded the possibility of disclosing any decisions made. The court underscored the procedural integrity of the Collegium's operations and the necessity for documented resolutions to ensure transparency. The court's dismissal of the petition reflects a commitment to uphold these procedural standards.
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, thereby upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court did not provide specific instructions for an appeal process, as the dismissal was final regarding the matter at hand.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the principle that transparency under the RTI Act is contingent upon the existence of formal decisions or resolutions. It highlights the judiciary's commitment to procedural integrity while also raising questions about the balance between transparency and the internal workings of judicial bodies.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.