After the Delhi High Court on Tuesday agreed to grant an urgent hearing to the Supreme Court's petition challenging the High Court's order, the bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar admitted the appeal. The Single Bench judgment held that the office of the Chief Justice of India was within the purview of the transparency law.

The apex court had approached the High Court alleging that the judgment of Justice Ravindra Bhat was "bad in law" and "deserves to be set aside". The Appeal highlighted 58 "errors" in the judgment and said that "the analysis of the single judge is essentially wrong and the conclusions reached by him are unjustified in law and constitutional theory."

The judgment under appeal is contrary to the stand taken by CJI K.G. Balakrishnan who has consistently been maintaining that his office is beyond the purview of the Right to Information Act. The appeal was filed by Government advocate Anil Nanda. Gaurav Duggal, who had appeared before Justice Bhat, was not aware of the appeal.

Anil Nanda, speaking to media persons said, "The judiciary has a plethora of information that cannot be made public. If medical records of judges were sought under RTI, it would have disastrous consequences." Attorney General Goolam E. Vahanvati, who also appeared before the Single Judge 'settled' the division bench appeal memorandum. 

The division bench constituted a three-judge bench and fixed the matter for Nov 12.

Paginate