Central Information Commission
Mr. Jagdev Singh vs Supreme Court Of India on 26 April, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001767
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 26 April 2013
Date of decision : 26 April 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jagdev Singh,
S/o. Late Shri S. Lachman Singh,
R/o. House No. 45 Extensions,
Janipur Colony, Jammu,
J & K - 180 007.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri P S N Murthy, BO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard the submissions of the Respondents.
3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had raised a large number of queries relating to the appointment of judges in the High Courts seeking a variety of information. The CPIO had not disclosed any such information with the observation that the information relating to the appointment of judges was the subject matter of judicial proceedings in SLP number 3285556 of 2009, now converted into civil appeals number 1004445 of 2010 and subjudice before the Supreme Court. She had also referred to the stay granted by the Supreme Court on the disclosure of such information in the case relating to Subhash Chandra Agrawal and had held that the disclosure of similar CIC/SM/A/2012/001767 information in the present case would result in the contempt of Court. She had cited the provisions of subsection 1(b) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in this regard. Not satisfied, the Appellant had preferred an appeal which the Appellate Authority had dismissed after upholding the order of the CPIO.
4. We have carefully considered the contents of the RTI request and the response of the CPIO. Nearly all the queries of the Appellant relate to the procedure followed in the appointment of judges to Superior Courts. Some of the queries are impressionistic in nature and do not amount to information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. For example, the query regarding the recommendation of persons related to present and former judges for appointment as judges of the High Courts is in the nature of seeking confirmation of an opinion which the CPIO cannot be expected to offer. The appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts is made by the President of India on the recommendation of the Collegium of Judges. The proceedings of the Collegium is the subject matter in the case of Subhash Chandra Agrawal. It is the disclosure of such information which has been stayed by the Supreme Court and the matter has not been finally disposed of yet. It is only after the Supreme Court finally disposes of this matter and sets down the law in this regard, it would be possible to decide whether such information should be disclosed or not. The Appellant has to wait for this.
5. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner CIC/SM/A/2012/001767 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001767