[Collegium meeting details] Newspaper reports of no evidentiary value; no ground to doubt SC's stance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a petition seeking details of the Supreme Court Collegium meeting held on December 12, 2018, held that newspaper reports regarding the same hold no evidentiary value and cognisance could not be taken of unsubstantiated and unverified reports [Anjali Bhardwaj v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India]..Justice Yashwant Varma took into account that no cogent evidence had been placed on record to doubt the Supreme Court's stance that no formal resolution was drawn up in the said meeting.“In the absence of any formal resolution coming to be adopted and signed by the Hon’ble members of the Collegium on December 12, 2018, the respondents have rightly taken the position that there was absence of material that was liable to be disclosed,” the order said..The High Court's decision came on an appeal against an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) upholding the stance of the Supreme Court that no disclosure about the meeting can be made since no resolution was passed in that meeting, as the required consultation could not be completed..The petitioners, however, submitted that as per the respondents’ disclosures, certain decisions were taken by the Collegium and this in itself would warrant disclosure of requisite information to the petitioner.The High Court’s attention was drawn to certain newspaper reports that reported certain statements said to have been made by one of the Collegium members, saying that certain decisions were taken during the December 2018 meeting, and expressing disappointment that they had not been uploaded..The single-judge noted that a “decision” taken by the Collegium would have to be embodied as a “resolution”, ultimately framed and signed by the members of that collective body.“That resolution alone would represent the collective decision taken or the majoritarian view which prevailed and was adopted,” the Court said.It was taken into consideration that since the issues being discussed remained unresolved, no formal resolution came to be drawn up at the meeting in question. .Justice Varma concluded that in the absence of a formal resolution being adopted and signed by the Collegium on December 12, 2018, the respondents had rightly taken the position that there was absence of material liable to be disclosed.“Accordingly, and for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition along with pending application fails and shall stand dismissed,” the Court ordered..Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rahul Gupta appeared for the petitioner..In the meeting held on December 12, 2018, the Supreme Collegium headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi had reportedly recommended the elevation of Justices Rajendra Menon and Pradeep Nandrajog to the Supreme Court.After the deliberations of the Collegium were leaked, the panel of judges decided to keep the issue in abeyance and did not release a resolution recommending the judges in question for elevation. In January 2019, a new Collegium was constituted after the retirement of Justice Madan Lokur, who would go on to express his disappointment that the December 12, 2018 Collegium resolution was not uploaded on the Supreme Court website..On the basis of these facts, Bharadwaj had filed a Right to Information (RTI) application seeking details of this Collegium meeting. The Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court, however, denied this information citing Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act.The First Appellate Authority under the Act upheld the decision of the PIO, but set aside the grounds for it. The Appellate Authority held that no resolutions had been passed by the collegium on the said date.This prompted an appeal before the CIC, which also upheld the denial of information. In its December 2021 order, the CIC stated that the final outcome of the meeting dated December 12, 2018 was discussed in the subsequent resolution published by the Collegium on January 10, 2019. This prompted Bharadwaj to approach the High Court in appeal..[Read Judgment]