Supreme Court clarifies disclosure of Collegium decisions under RTI Act: Anjali Bhardwaj vs. CPIO (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 09 December 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1602
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Are discussions within the Supreme Court Collegium, before a final resolution, subject to public disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the scope of information that must be made public. The Court held that only final resolutions of the Collegium, not tentative discussions, are required to be disclosed under the RTI Act. This judgment clarifies the extent of transparency required in the functioning of the Collegium.

Case Background

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Anjali Bhardwaj seeking information about the agenda, decisions, and resolutions of a Supreme Court Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court rejected the application, stating that no final decision had been taken at the meeting. The First Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge also dismissed the appeals, reiterating that the Collegium had not reached a final decision on the matter during the meeting of December 12, 2018.

The petitioner, Anjali Bhardwaj, then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner contended that the Collegium had taken certain decisions in the meeting held on December 12, 2018, which should be made public.
• The petitioner relied on an article published on the Bar and Bench website, where one of the Collegium members expressed disappointment that the decisions taken on December 12, 2018, were not uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website.
• The petitioner argued that the information disclosed in the press by a Collegium member indicated that decisions were indeed taken on December 12, 2018, which were later changed in the subsequent meeting on January 10, 2019.
• The petitioner submitted that everyone has a right to know the decisions taken by the Collegium, as per the Supreme Court’s resolution dated October 3, 2017, which mandated uploading Collegium decisions on the Supreme Court’s website.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that no final decision was taken in the Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018.
• The respondent submitted that discussions might have taken place, but unless a final decision is taken after due consultation and a final resolution is drawn, the discussions cannot be considered a final decision.
• The respondent contended that the Collegium is a multi-member body, and its decisions are embodied in a formally drawn and signed resolution.
• The respondent relied on the subsequent resolution of January 10, 2019, which stated that the consultation process was not completed in the December 12, 2018 meeting.
• The respondent argued that only final resolutions are required to be disclosed in the public domain as per the resolution dated October 3, 2017.

Summary of Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the core question of whether the information sought by the petitioner about the Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018, was required to be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the Resolution dated 03.10.2017 of the Supreme Court to conclude that only final resolutions are required to be uploaded on the website. The Court also relied on the Resolution dated 10.01.2019 of the Supreme Court to note that the consultation process in the meeting held on 12.12.2018 was not completed and therefore, no final decision was taken in the meeting held on 12.12.2018.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a final resolution as the formal embodiment of the Collegium’s decision. The Court noted that discussions and deliberations are part of the consultative process, and only after this process is complete can a final decision be said to have been taken. The Court also highlighted that the Collegium is a multi-member body, and its decisions are formally drawn up and signed. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the subsequent resolution of January 10, 2019, clarified that the consultation process was not completed in the meeting held on December 12, 2018.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Only the final resolutions of the Supreme Court Collegium, not tentative discussions or deliberations, are required to be disclosed under the RTI Act.
• Discussions and deliberations within the Collegium are part of the consultative process and do not constitute a final decision until a formal resolution is drawn up and signed.
• The judgment clarifies the scope of transparency required in the functioning of the Collegium and emphasizes the importance of finality in decision-making.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that only final resolutions of the Supreme Court Collegium, not tentative discussions or deliberations, are required to be disclosed under the RTI Act. This clarifies the previous position of law regarding the disclosure of Collegium decisions and provides guidance on what constitutes a final decision in this context.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that only final resolutions of the Collegium are required to be disclosed under the RTI Act. The Court clarified that discussions and deliberations within the Collegium are part of the consultative process and do not constitute a final decision until a formal resolution is drawn up and signed. This judgment provides clarity on the scope of information that must be made public regarding the functioning of the Collegium.