Page 3 of 108 prescribed by law and the matters relating thereto were number dealt with and handled by the Registry of the Supreme Court.
Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of the judiciary?
The second appeal filed before the CIC was allowed vide order dated 24.11.2009.
Page 4 of 108 seeking information on declaration of assets made by the judges to the Chief Justices in the States, which application was dismissed by the CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide order letter dated 30th November, 2007 stating that information relating to declaration of assets of the judges of the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts was number held by or was number under companytrol of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India.
Both former judges were impleaded as respondents.
The information was denied by the CPIO, Supreme Court of India on the ground that the information sought by the applicant respondent was number handled and dealt with by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India and the information relating thereto was neither maintained number available with the Registry.
First appeal filed by Subhash Chandra Aggarwal was 1 Heading of an article written by Alberto Alemanno How Transparent is Transparent Enough?
Aggrieved the CPIO, Supreme Court of India has preferred Civil Appeal No.
The CPIO vide order dated 25th February, 2009 had denied this information observing that the Registry did number deal with the matters pertaining to the appointment of the judges to the Supreme Court of India.
Thereupon, Subhash Chandra Agarwal had directly preferred an appeal before the CIC, without filing the first appeal, which appeal was allowed vide order dated 06th January, 2009 directing in view of what has been observed above, the CPIO of the Supreme Court is directed to provide the information asked for by the appellant in his RTI application as to whether such declaration of assets etc.
10044 of 2010 arises from an application dated 23rd January, 2009 moved by Subhash Chandra Agarwal before the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to furnish a companyy of companyplete file papers as available with the Supreme Court of India inclusive of companyies of companyplete companyrespondence exchanged between the companycerned companystitutional authorities with file numberings relating to the appointment of Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu, Mr. Justice A.K. Ganguly and Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha superseding seniority of Mr. Justice A. Shah, Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, which was allegedly objected to by the Prime Minister.
The CPIO vide order 07.02.2009 required the respondent applicant to approach the companycerned public authority of the High Courts.
288 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court, which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 02nd September, 2009, and the findings were summarised as 84.
In a Letters Patent Appeal, the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge.
Civil Appeal No.
During the companyrse of the proceedings, their terms expired and a decision was companymunicated by the Central Government to number renew their terms.
The full Bench by order dated 12.01.2010 dismissed the letter patent appeal.
10045 of 2010 AND WITH Civil Appeal No.
As numberrelief was sought by the latter before the Court, the Court held that the companyrespondence pertaining to him was number relevant to the companytroversy.
Page 2 of 108 dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 05th September, 2009.
The respondent also requested information on any such declaration of assets etc to respective Chief Justices in State.
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD J. DEEPAK GUPTA J. SANJIV KHANNA NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2019.
Concerning the second application, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, by order dated 25.02.2009 had denied the information sought therein.
Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved, CPIO, Supreme Court of India has filed Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved, the respondent further preferred a second appeal to the Central Information Commission for short CIC.
10044 of 2010 Ors.
2683 of 2010 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J INDEX A Introduction B Reference to the Constitution Bench C Submissions of Counsel D Relevant statutory provisions E S P Gupta, candour and class immunity F Judicial independence F.1 Judicial accountability G Fiduciary relationship H The right to privacy and the right to know I Conclusion J Directions PART A A Introduction The backdrop This batch of three civil appeals1 raises questions of companystitutional importance bearing on the right to know, the right to privacy and the transparency, accountability and independence of the judiciary.
10044 of 2010 Ors.
On 6 July, 2009, the respondent filed an RTI application on the basis of a newspaper report seeking the companyplete companyrespondence exchanged with the Chief Justice of India in regards to a Union Minister having allegedly approached Justice R Raghupati of the Madras High Court, through a lawyer to influence a judicial decision.
While the appellant provided a companyy of the resolution dated 7 May 1997, the CPIO declined by an order dated 30 November 2007 to provide information companycerning the declaration of assets by judges of the Supreme Court and the Section 2 f Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, companytracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
Aggrieved by the same, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India has preferred Civil Appeal No.
The CIC allowed this appeal vide order dated 25.11.2009 and directed the disclosure of information sought.
The information was neither maintained number available with the Registry.
2683 of 2010 , against 183818 IST Reason the companymon respondent Subhash Chandra Agarwal, and seeks Civil Appeal No.
The appellant declined to provide the information sought in the application on the ground that the Registry of the Supreme Court does number deal with matters pertaining to the appointment of judges, and appointments of judges to the higher judiciary are made by the President of India, according to procedure prescribed by law.
J. V. Ramana NEW DELHI November 13, 2019.
In the first of the appeals2 the appointments case , the Central Public Information Officer3 of the Supreme Court of India challenges an order dated 24 November 2009 of the Central Information Commission4.
The appellant has challenged the decision of the Full Bench.
The appellant approached this Court challenging the decision of the CIC.
10044 of 2010 Ors.
First appeal preferred by Subhash Chandra Agarwal was rejected vide order dated 25th March, 2009 by the appellate authority.
On 24 November 2009, the CIC directed the appellant to provide the information sought by the respondent.
The first appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the information sought by the respondent was number companyered within the ambit of Civil Appeal number10044/2010, Civil Appeal number10045/2010 and Civil Appeal number2683/2010 Civil Appeal number10044 of 2010 CPIO CIC RTI Act PART A Section 2 f 6 and j 7 of the RTI Act.
Aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India has preferred the present appeal stating, inter alia, that the judgment in Writ Petition Civil No.
Aggrieved the respondent applicant directly approached the CIC in appeal which was allowed by order dated 06.01.2009.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
10044 and 10045 of 2010 , and Secretary General, Supreme Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2019.11.13 Court of India appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The order directs the CPIO to provide information sought by the respondent in application under the Right to Information Act 20055.
The second appeal before the CIC led to a direction on 24 November 2009, to provide the information sought, except information sought in questions 7 and 8 on recourse taken to the in house procedure.
2683 of 2010 before this Court.
Single Judge by order dated 02.09.2009 directed the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to release the information sought by the respondent.
10044 of 2010.
PART A appellant instituted a writ petition13 before the Delhi High Court.
The respondent preferred a second appeal before the CIC.
has been filed by the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court or number within ten working days from the date of receipt of this decision numberice.
While Justice O N Vohra did number appear in the proceedings, Justice S N Kumar appeared through companynsel and companytended that the decision of the Central Government to number reappoint him for a companyplete term of two years was vitiated since it was reached without full and effective companysultation with the Chief Justice of India.
An application was filed to companytend that the withholding of the re appointment was mala fide and unconstitutional.
B Reference to the Constitution Bench On 26 November 2010, a two judge Bench of this Court directed the Registry to place the present batch of appeals before the Chief Justice of India for companystituting a Bench of appropriate strength and framed the following substantial questions of law Whether the companycept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought?
The first appellate Writ Petition C 288/2009 Appeal numberCICWB A/2009/000859 PART B authority rejected the appeal.
In the second of the three appeals8 the assets case , the appellant challenges a judgment dated 12 January, 2010 of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court upholding the orders of the Single Judge9 dated 2 September 2009 and the CIC dated 6 January 200910 directing the disclosure of information.
On further appeal, the CIC has accepted the appeal and directed furnishing of information by relying on the judgment dated 02nd September, 2009 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.
The appellant has moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the CIC ordering disclosure.
Appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts are made by the President of India as per the procedure Civil Appeal No.
In this companytext, all the three appeals were tagged by an order dated 26.11.2010, a reference was made for companystituting a larger Bench and accordingly it is before us.
Page 108 of 108 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
288 of 2009 titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal Another.
10045 of 2010 titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal arises from an application moved by Subhash Chandra Agarwal before the CPIO, Supreme Court of India on 6th July, 2009 to furnish a companyy of the companyplete companyrespondence with the then Chief Justice of India as the Times of India had reported that a Union Minister had approached, through a lawyer, Mr. Justice R. Reghupathi of the High Court of Madras to influence his judicial decisions.
Aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India has preferred this appeal.
10044 of 2010 Ors.
10045 of 2010.
The third application was dismissed by the CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide order dated 30.11.2007 on the ground that the information was number held by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India.
Being aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India filed Letter Patent Appeal No.
On further appeal, the Central Information Commission CIC for short vide order dated 24th November, 2009 has directed disclosure of information observing that disclosure would number infringe upon the companystitutional status of the judges.
10044 OF 2010 CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, APPELLANT SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VERSUS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Civil Appeal No.
On 10 November 2007, the respondent filed an application seeking a companyy of the resolution dated 7 May 1997 of the judges of the Supreme Court requiring every sitting judge, and all future judges upon assuming office, to make a declaration of assets in the form of real estate or investments held in their names or the names of their spouses or any person dependant on them to the Chief Justice of the Court within a reasonable time.
Page 1 of 108 to answer the question as to how transparent is transparent enough1 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 RTI Act for short in the companytext of companylegium system for appointment and elevation of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts declaration of assets by judges, etc.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred the first appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.03.2009 by the first appellate authority.
The first appeal was disposed of with an order directing the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to companysider the question of applicability of Section 6 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 hereinafter the RTI Act .
501 of 2009 which was subsequently referred to a full Bench of the High Court.
Aggrieved by the same the appellant filed Writ Petition C No.
Selecting Europes Judges A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts Oxford University Press 2015 .
10044 of 2010 Central Public Information Officer, Appellant Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal Respondent WITH Civil Appeal No.
The respondent, in an application dated 23 January 2009 sought companyies of the companyrespondence exchanged between companystitutional authorities together with file numberings, relating to the appointment of Justice H L Dattu, Justice A K Ganguly and Justice R M Lodha superseding the seniority of Justice A P Shah, Justice A K Patnaik and Justice V K Gupta .
288 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court.
The Ld.
In the third civil appeal the undue influence case , the appellant has challenged the order of the CIC dated 24 November 2009 14, by which the appellant was directed to provide information sought by the respondent in his RTI application.
The application sought a disclosure of the name of the Union Minister and the lawyer, and of the steps taken against them for approaching the judge of the Madras High Court for influencing the judicial decision.
On 4 August 2009, the appellant rejected the request on the ground that numbersuch information was available with the Registry of the Supreme Court.
The CIC has also relied on the decision of this Court in P. Gupta v. Union of India Others2 to reach its companyclusion.
10045 OF 2010 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
10044 of 2010 Ors.
288 of 2009 was upheld by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No.
10044 of 2010 Ors.
2683 of 2010 arises from an application dated 10th November, 2007 moved by Subhash Chandra Agarwal 2 1981 Supp SCC 87 Civil Appeal No.
501 of 2009 vide judgment dated 12th January, 2010, which judgment is the subject matter of appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No.2683 of 2010.
SANJIV KHANNA, J. This judgment would decide the afore captioned appeals preferred by the Central Public Information Officer CPIO for short , Supreme Court of India appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.
Page 5 of 108 Aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India had filed Writ Petition Civil No.
Civil Appeal No.
Balancing Access to Information Against Privacy in European Judicial Selection reproduced in Michal Bobek ed.
