442/2022, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said LPA and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No 4129/2022, the original writ petitioner – original applicant has preferred the present petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/lapse-of-land-acquisition-under-section-242-of-the-act-2013/
The First Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal by observing that as such there was no final decision(s) taken in the Collegium meeting held on 12.12.2018 and there was no final decision which culminated into the resolution and therefore, in absence of such resolution the information need not be supplied. The learned Single Judge also dismissed Writ Petition
No 4129/2022
by reiterating that in the Collegium meeting held on 12.12.2018 there was no final decision taken and even as observed in the subsequent resolution meeting held on 10.01.2019, it was so stated that the then Collegium on 12.12.2018 took certain decisions, however, the required consultation could not be undertaken and completed. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in fact certain decisions were taken by the Collegium in the meeting held on 12.12.2018 and therefore, the decisions which were taken, were required to be uploaded in the public domain and the decisions which were taken by the Collegium in the meeting held on 12.12.2018 were required to be informed and the particulars of which are required to be given under the RTI Act. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that therefore, it may not be accepted that no decision(s) was/were taken in the Collegium meeting held on 12.12.2018.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
But unless and until, a final decision is taken after due consultation and on the basis of such a final decision a final resolution is drawn, whatever discussions had taken place cannot be said to be a final decision of the Collegium.
Therefore, as no final decision was taken which was culminated into a final resolution drawn and signed by all the members of the Collegium, the same was not required to be disclosed in the public domain and that too under the RTI Act.
Only after the final resolution is drawn and signed by the members of the Collegium, which is always after completing the due procedure and the process of discussion/deliberations and consultation, the same required to be published on the Supreme Court website as per Resolution dated 03.10.2017.
2
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/challenge-to-dismissal-of-revision-application-in-criminal-case/
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no reliance can be placed on the news report and/or some article in the media.
Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ Vs. CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, (RTI CELL) (2022 INSC 1271)
Case Number: SLP(C) No.-021019 / 2022
