For the first time since the inception of the right to information (RTI) act five years ago, the Supreme Court on Monday started hearing its registry’s appeal against the information watchdog’s direction to impart details about elevation of high court judges to the apex court, by superseding senior judges.
A bench of justice B Sudershan Reddy and justice SS Nijjar issued notices to registrar generals of HCs, even as justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, was elevated to the top court.
Prasad, a former Allahabad high court chief justice, hit the headlines when president Pratibha Patil returned a file recommending his promotion to the apex court’s collegium. The President was concerned about reports that Prasad was being promoted while ignoring seniors.
But the collegium headed by chief justice KG Balakrishnan reiterated its decision that certain allegations against him were false and baseless, leaving the president no option but to sign his warrant of appointment.
On December 4 last, the SC had stayed the CIC’s November 25 order that held the appointment of judges as a “public activity” that cannot be withheld from disclosure. It told the apex court registry to make public records relating to the appointment of three apex court judges who superseded seniors.
The applicant had sought correspondence between the authorities involved in the selection of justice HL Dattu, justice AK Ganguly and justice RM Lodha, superseding justice AP Shah, justice AK Patnaik and justice VK Gupta.
Incidentally, Delhi high court chief justice Shah headed the bench that upheld the CIC’s order on assets disclosure by the SC justices.
On the apex court’s secretary general’s appeal against the CIC order, the bench stayed operation of a CIC order directing the CJI to divulge communication between him and Madras high court Justice R Reghupathy on alleged influence used by a Union minister to secure bail to a father-son accused.
RTI activist SC Agrawal had sought a direction to judges on disclosure of assets, on Justice Reghupathy’s telephone conversation with the minister, and junior HC chief justices finding place in the SC by disregarding seniority criteria.
Attorney general Goolam E Vahanvati, who appeared for the SC against the CIC order in the assets case before the Delhi high court, had sought a stay on the information commission’s direction. He had said that many important questions of law were involved and they required urgent hearing.
Comments