ANJALI BHARDWAJ VS. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (RTI CELL) (2022) INSC 1602:

DATE: 09/12/2022

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar

FACTS:

In the case of Anjali Bhardwaj vs. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, the appellant, Anjali Bhardwaj, filed a request under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking disclosure of information related to the decisions of the Collegium of the Supreme Court regarding the appointments and transfers of judges. Specifically, she sought information on the records of deliberations, recommendations, and decisions made by the Collegium, which includes the Chief Justice of India and senior judges, on judicial appointments. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court denied her request on the grounds that such information fell under the category of confidential and could not be disclosed under the RTI Act, citing the need for transparency in judicial functions.

Dissatisfied with the response, Anjali Bhardwaj appealed the decision, leading to a series of proceedings through the appellate process. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the Court had to address the central issue: whether decisions of the Collegium regarding the appointment of judges could be disclosed under the RTI Act. The case raised concerns about the balance between judicial independence and the transparency mandates of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court was asked to clarify whether information pertaining to judicial appointments, which is traditionally considered confidential, could be subjected to public scrutiny under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

ISSUES:

The key issue was whether the decisions and deliberations of the Supreme Court Collegium, specifically regarding judicial appointments and transfers, could be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The case raised questions about the scope of transparency in judicial functioning and whether the public's right to know could override the confidentiality traditionally maintained by the judiciary in matters related to appointments. The Supreme Court had to determine whether such information fell within the exemptions provided under the RTI Act, particularly concerning judicial independence and confidentiality.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dismissed the appeal. The Court concurred with the lower courts' findings, emphasizing that the meeting on December 12, 2018, did not culminate in any formal resolutions, as the consultative process was incomplete. The Court referred to a subsequent resolution dated January 10, 2019, which clarified that the discussions from the earlier meeting were not finalized. Consequently, the Court held that only final resolutions of the Collegium are subject to disclosure under the RTI Act, and tentative discussions or deliberations do not qualify as 'information' under the Act.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted the distinction between discussions or deliberations of the Collegium and final decisions or resolutions. The Court emphasized that the Collegium's meeting held on December 12, 2018, did not result in any final or conclusive resolutions that could be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Court referred to the fact that the meeting was part of an ongoing consultative process where decisions were still pending, and no formal decisions had been made. The Court pointed out that only finalized resolutions of the Collegium could be considered as "information" under the RTI Act, and tentative discussions, opinions, or deliberations which do not result in final decisions are not subject to disclosure. The Court concluded that the disclosure of the Collegium's internal deliberations, which were incomplete and non-final, would violate the confidentiality and internal processes of the judiciary, thus falling outside the scope of the RTI Act.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court referred to the subsequent resolution of the Collegium dated January 10, 2019, which clarified that the discussions from the December 12, 2018, meeting had not reached a final conclusion. This resolution confirmed that the meeting was not intended to result in final decisions and was rather a part of an ongoing process. The Court reasoned that the RTI Act was designed to ensure transparency in public matters but should not interfere with the internal working of the judiciary where deliberations are still in progress and have not yet been formalized. The Court thus reinforced the principle that judicial independence and the consultative process of the Collegium should be preserved, and transparency should only extend to finalized decisions that have been duly recorded. Based on these considerations, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the earlier decisions and ruling that only final resolutions are disclosable under the RTI Act.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's decision hinged on the balance between judicial transparency and the confidentiality of the Collegium’s deliberations. The Court ruled that only final decisions, resolutions, or recommendations made by the Collegium are subject to disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The discussions and deliberations that occurred during the December 12, 2018, meeting were part of an ongoing consultative process and had not resulted in any formal resolutions. The Court emphasized that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency in public matters, but this transparency does not extend to incomplete or tentative discussions that have not yet led to conclusive decisions. The ruling protected the internal workings of the judiciary, maintaining that confidential deliberations should remain shielded unless they culminate in formal decisions or resolutions.

In its judgment, the Court underscored the importance of preserving judicial independence by protecting the internal consultative process of the Collegium. It highlighted the fact that the discussions during the December 12 meeting were not finalized, as reflected in a subsequent resolution from January 10, 2019, which confirmed that the process was still ongoing. By limiting the disclosure of only finalized resolutions, the Court ensured that the RTI Act did not disrupt the judicial decision-making process, which requires confidentiality in deliberations to maintain the independence of the judiciary. This judgment reinforced that the RTI Act must be interpreted in a manner that does not infringe upon the principles of judicial independence and confidentiality, allowing transparency only where it does not compromise the essential functioning of the judiciary.