CIC had sought information on Regupathy claim.
Giving relief to itself, the Supreme Court (SC) stayed on Friday the central information commission’s (CIC’s) order to divulge details relating to Madras high court judge R Regupathy’s communication to chief justice of India (CJI) KG Balakrishnan that a Union minister tried to interfere in a criminal case before him.
Justices B Sudershan Reddy and Deepak Verma also granted immediate relief to the apex court’s chief public information officer (CPIO), who represents the “appropriate authority [CJI]”, by staying CIC’s another direction to part with details the collegium considered while appointing three judges to SC by superseding senior judges, including Delhi high court chief justice AP Shah.
Holding that he was covered by the landmark Right to Information Act (RTI) and was not immune to disclosing information he may have in official capacity, CIC had asked CJI to provide material to applicant SC Aggrawal.
Realising that a large number of people were concerned that it approach itself rather than HC, as it had done in the assets case, CPIO explained that it resorted to SC because the issues involved had “far-reaching consequences”.
Moreover, the substantial questions of law raised in the petition “are of general public interest which have to be ultimately and conclusively determined by the Supreme Court itself as the top court of the country”, he said.
While attorney general Goolam E Vahanvati appeared for CPIO, Prashant Bhushan represented Aggrawal.
The crucial issues raised by CPIO in the two appeals are:
1 Whether an applicant has a right to information relating to appointment of judges under section 2(j) of the RTI Act.
2 Whether the principles of independence of judiciary demand that the functioning of judiciary should not be interfered with by “strangers and busybodies”.
In its order on November 25 last, CIC said that appointment of judges was a “public activity” that can’t be withheld from disclosure.
Thus, it directed CJI to make public the records relating to the appointment of three apex court judges who superseded their seniors.
Aggrawal wanted complete correspondence between authorities concerned relating to appointment of justices HL Dattu, AK Ganguly and RM Lodha, who he claimed, had superseded justices Shah, AK Patnaik and VK Gupta. He said PM Manmohan Singh had objected to depriving the senior CJs of berths in the apex court.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=spacer}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}