Central Information Commission
File No. CIC/WB/C/2010/000006SM
Right to Information Act - 2005 under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 11 August 2011
Date of Decision : 05 September 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Kishanlal Mittal,
1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van,
Borivali East, Mumbai - 400 066.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Chief Information Commissioner : Sh. Satyananda Mishra
We had heard this case on 11.08.2010. The Appellant was heard through phone. On
behalf of the Respondent Smt. Smita Vats Sharma, Additional Registrar & CPIO, was present.
2. In an application dated 17.09.2009, the Complainant had sought three pieces of
information relating to the constitution of the collegium of Supreme Court judges, minutes
of its meetings for the last three years and the details of recommendation for elevation of
judges to the Supreme Court of India. The Complainant submitted that the CPIO did not
provide any information. The CPIO submitted both orally and in writing that the
information sought by the Complainant was confidential and was exempt under Section
8(e) & (j) and that he did not have any right under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, to access
such information. Moreover, the information was not held by or under the control of the
Registry, CPIO, Supreme Court of India and therefore, could not be furnished. It was also
brought to our notice that the Hon. Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition (C) No.
32856/3286 of 2009 had stayed all the proceedings before the CIC which sought
information and file notings relating to the appointment of judges. Further, by order dated
26.11.2010, leave has been granted and the SLP has been converted into civil appeal
Nos. 10044/2010 and 10045/2010. It was also informed that in case of the CPIO &
Another Vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the Supreme Court as per the record of
proceedings dated 04.12.2009, has stayed the directions of the CIC for disclosing
information relating to the appointment of judges and the same is still pending. The
Respondent submitted that the minutes of the meetings of the collegium and the
recommendations made for the appointment of judges fell within the realms of subject
matter covered by the stay order and therefore, dissemination of the information sought by
the Complainant was prohibited and exempted. It was also informed that similar matters
pertaining to whether the appointment of judges could be the subject matter of the Act has
already been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the CPIO, SCI Vs.
Subhash Chander Agrawal (2011) 1 SCC 496.
Decision:
4. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has granted stays orders in a
similar matter, the desired information cannot be disclosed. Moreover, the matter
has also been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court and, therefore, no
directions to the CPIO Supreme Court can be given at this stage. Therefore, the
case is adjourned till such time the stay order is vacated by the Apex Court.
5. With the above decision, the case is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and
payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar