Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Cen.Pub.Information Officer,Sci . vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 17 August, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant, A.M. Khanwilkar
1
ITEM NO.303 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044/2010
CEN.PUB.INFORMATION OFFICER,SCI & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
C.A. NO. 2683/2010
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
C.A. NO. 10045/2010
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 17/08/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Vidya V. Pawar, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR
Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv.
Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv.
Mr. Kshatrshal Raj, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv.
for M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR
Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAKHINA
Date: 2016.08.23
18:52:11 IST
Ms. Monika, Adv.
Reason:
Ms. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv.
2
Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR
Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR
Mr. Amrendra Kr. Choubey, Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Bharat Sangal, AOR
Ms. Vernika Tomar, Adv.
Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv.
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
Mr. Umakant Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR
Mr. Nitin Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AOR
Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR
Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.
Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR
Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR
Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Gen.,Sikkim
Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv.
Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.
for M/s Arputham Aruna & Co., AOR
Mr. Aman Sinha, Sr. Adv.
3
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR
Mr. Satyam Sakia, Adv.
Mr. Janaranjan Das, AOR
Mr. Yashvardhan, Adv.
Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR
Mr. Suryanaryana Singh, Sr. AAG
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The matters are referred to Constitution Bench for its esteemed opinion in terms of the signed order. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044/2010 CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SCI & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2683/2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10045/2010 ORDER
1. To persuade the Court that the matters should be heard by the present three judge Bench notwithstanding the order dated 26th November, 2010 passed by a two-judge Bench of this Court, Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the seven judge Bench decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta Versus Union of India & anr. [(1981) 2 Supp. SCC 87], particularly paragraphs 83, 84 and 85 thereof.
2. We find that a similar reliance was placed by Shri Bhushan before the two-judge Bench that had rendered the order dated 26th November, 2010. The said fact is recorded in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid order. Thereafter in paragraph 11, the two-judge Bench observed as follows:
11. Whether the said decision would be applicable when such information is sought under the provisions of the Right to information Act is an important question that is required to be gone into.
3. In paragraph 12 of its order the two judge Bench of this Court has further observed that it is of the “considered opinion that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved in the present 3 case which is required to be heard by a Constitution Bench.” The questions of law formulated by the two judge Bench are set out in paragraph 15 of the aforesaid order which are as follows:
1. Whether the concept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought?
Whether the information
sought for amounts to
interference in the
functioning of the judiciary?
2. Whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision?
3. Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information Act?” 4
4. Having heard Shri P.S. Narsimha, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants and Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondent and having considered the paragraphs referred to above in the decision in S.P. Gupta (supra) we are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the two judge Bench of this Court in its order dated 26th November, 2010. Accordingly, we refer the questions, extracted above, to the Constitution Bench for its esteemed opinion. As Shri Bhushan has expressed some anxiety on account of the long pendency of the matters we leave it open for Shri Bhushan to make a mention of the same either before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India or before the Constitution Bench as and when constituted for an appropriate order in this regard. 5
5. Office to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT) ...................,J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR) NEW DELHI AUGUST 17, 2016