The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had held that the Supreme Court is not required to maintain particulars of judgments reserved and the period for which they have been reserved..The Bench comprising Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy did not budge, despite vociferous arguments made by advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the appellant Lokesh Batra..The case has its genesis in an RTI application filed by Batra seeking the time period for which judgments have been reserved by the Supreme Court. The same was denied by the Supreme Court PIO and that decision was upheld by First Appellate Authority..The CIC, on appeal, had overturned that decision and directed the Supreme Court to maintain details of judgments reserved and the period for which they have been reserved. It also directed that the said information be provided under RTI Act..On appeal to the High Court, a single judge agreed with the contention of the Supreme Court that it does not collate and maintain such information in a compiled form. The High Court, therefore, directed the Supreme Court to maintain such data so that it can be made available under the RTI in the future..This judgment was set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court, which ruled that the Supreme Court is not obligated to maintain such data. It was this decision that was challenged before the Supreme Court..When the matter was taken up as item 36 in court room 10, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the Court is obligated by its own judgments to maintain such records. The Bench, however, seemed reluctant to issue notice. This prompted Bhushan to submit that,.“Let me say with all due respect, if this Court were to uphold the judgment [of the High Court], a clear unequivocal message will go not only to this country but even to other jurisdictions that the Supreme Court of India, which lays down the law regarding RTI, will not disclose even innocuous information like details of judgments reserved by it.”.The Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the case.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had held that the Supreme Court is not required to maintain particulars of judgments reserved and the period for which they have been reserved..The Bench comprising Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy did not budge, despite vociferous arguments made by advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the appellant Lokesh Batra..The case has its genesis in an RTI application filed by Batra seeking the time period for which judgments have been reserved by the Supreme Court. The same was denied by the Supreme Court PIO and that decision was upheld by First Appellate Authority..The CIC, on appeal, had overturned that decision and directed the Supreme Court to maintain details of judgments reserved and the period for which they have been reserved. It also directed that the said information be provided under RTI Act..On appeal to the High Court, a single judge agreed with the contention of the Supreme Court that it does not collate and maintain such information in a compiled form. The High Court, therefore, directed the Supreme Court to maintain such data so that it can be made available under the RTI in the future..This judgment was set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court, which ruled that the Supreme Court is not obligated to maintain such data. It was this decision that was challenged before the Supreme Court..When the matter was taken up as item 36 in court room 10, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the Court is obligated by its own judgments to maintain such records. The Bench, however, seemed reluctant to issue notice. This prompted Bhushan to submit that,.“Let me say with all due respect, if this Court were to uphold the judgment [of the High Court], a clear unequivocal message will go not only to this country but even to other jurisdictions that the Supreme Court of India, which lays down the law regarding RTI, will not disclose even innocuous information like details of judgments reserved by it.”.The Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the case.