The Delhi High Court today reserved its verdict on a matter involving the number of judgments reserved by the Supreme Court..Last year, the CIC had directed the release of information on cases which had been heard as well those where judgment had been reserved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had unsuccessfully challenged this order before Justice Bakhru..Prashant Bhushan argued that in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court had categorically directed all High Courts courts to compile information concerning pendency. This direction was issued with a view to remind judges about matters where ‘judgment was yet to be pronounced.’.Bhushan further submitted,.“What is the difficulty of the Supreme Court Registry in providing the information, especially in such day and age where everything is computerized? All the High Courts are doing it. The CIC in its order, had specifically mentioned that in this digital age, there should be no difficulty in compiling data as to on what date was a particular judgment reserved. It is a one minute job and it is their [Registry] duty.” .Bhushan also said that if the Parliament wanted information on similar lines, ‘would the Registry apply the same logic?’.He stated that it would be incongruous for the Registry to say no if the Parliament demands such information..Responding to this, the Bench remarked in a lighter vein that ‘the [Registry] may still say no.’. (Download the written submissions)
The Delhi High Court today reserved its verdict on a matter involving the number of judgments reserved by the Supreme Court..Last year, the CIC had directed the release of information on cases which had been heard as well those where judgment had been reserved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had unsuccessfully challenged this order before Justice Bakhru..Prashant Bhushan argued that in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court had categorically directed all High Courts courts to compile information concerning pendency. This direction was issued with a view to remind judges about matters where ‘judgment was yet to be pronounced.’.Bhushan further submitted,.“What is the difficulty of the Supreme Court Registry in providing the information, especially in such day and age where everything is computerized? All the High Courts are doing it. The CIC in its order, had specifically mentioned that in this digital age, there should be no difficulty in compiling data as to on what date was a particular judgment reserved. It is a one minute job and it is their [Registry] duty.” .Bhushan also said that if the Parliament wanted information on similar lines, ‘would the Registry apply the same logic?’.He stated that it would be incongruous for the Registry to say no if the Parliament demands such information..Responding to this, the Bench remarked in a lighter vein that ‘the [Registry] may still say no.’. (Download the written submissions)
