Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response On Pleas Seeking Information Relating To Collegium Recommendations Under RTI Act

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought response of the Union of India on pleas seeking information in respect of recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium under Right to Information Act, 2005.

Calling it an “important matter”, Justice Prathiba M Singh asked Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma to seek appropriate instructions and file an affidavit as the RTI applications relate to opinions and other notes relating to the collegium meetings.

The matter will now be heard in May.

The court was hearing a batch of three pleas raising the question as to whether information relating to recommendations made by the Collegium can be disclosed under RTI Act.

One of the pleas have been filed by one Dr. Vinod Surana, who had sought information regarding recommendations made between 1990 and 1992 by the then Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of Madras High Court for elevation of his father, P.S. Surana, as a judge of the Madras High Court.

Surana sought certified copies of complete documents, records and file notings relating to the recommendation and certified copies of documents recording the reasons for not proceeding with the recommendations. The Supreme Court PIO declined to disclose the information.

The CIC on January 31, 2013 rejected the appeal moved by Surana. Since the order was not communicated to him, various applications were moved by him to obtain it. The authorities said that the order was not communicated as the records were lost.

Surana then moved a plea before High Court which directed the CIC, on March 15, 2019, to hear the appeal afresh. Citing Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, the CIC upheld the decision to deny information.

Section 8(1)(j) states that “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the CPIO or SPIO or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information should be exempted from disclosure.”

Other two petitions are cross appeals filed in a case where one Dinesh Kumar Mishra in 2008 sought information concerning the appointment of two judges in Guwahati High Court.

He sought information on the opinion given by then Justices Brijesh Kumar and H K Sema, judges of the Supreme Court of India, who were once the Chief Justice and acting Chief Justice respectively of the Guwahati High Court. Information was also sought on the views expressed by the State of Nagaland and recommendation made by the Collegium to Government of India.

The CIC had directed CPIO to provide information to Mishra regarding the views expressed by State of Nagaland and recommendation made by Collegium to the Government of India.

Aggrieved by the order, Union of India filed petition challenging the CIC’s order. Mishra filed another plea against Union of India for failing to provide the information.

While issuing notice on the petitions in February, the court had noted that a constitutional bench of Supreme Court in CPIO Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.