Bar
& Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, 16 February 2016.
The Bench
comprising Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and
Amitava Roy did not budge, despite vociferous arguments made by advocate
Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the appellant Lokesh Batra.
The case has
its genesis in an RTI application filed by Batra seeking the time period for
which judgments have been reserved by the Supreme Court. The same was denied by
the Supreme Court PIO and that decision was upheld by First Appellate
Authority.
The CIC, on
appeal, had overturned that decision and directed the Supreme Court to maintain
details of judgments reserved and the period for which they have been reserved.
It also directed that the said information be provided under RTI Act.
On appeal to
the High Court, a single judge agreed with the contention of the Supreme Court
that it does not collate and maintain such information in a compiled form. The
High Court, therefore, directed the Supreme Court to maintain such data so that
it can be made available under the RTI in the future.
This judgment
was set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court, which ruled that the Supreme Court is not
obligated to maintain such data. It was this decision that was challenged
before the Supreme Court.
When the
matter was taken up as item 36 in court room 10, advocate Prashant Bhushan
submitted that the Court is obligated by its own judgments to maintain such
records. The Bench, however, seemed reluctant to issue notice. This prompted
Bhushan to submit that,
“Let
me say with all due respect, if this Court were to uphold the judgment [of the
High Court], a clear unequivocal message will go not only to this country but
even to other jurisdictions that the Supreme Court of India, which lays down
the law regarding RTI, will not disclose even innocuous information like
details of judgments reserved by it.”
The Court,
however, proceeded to dismiss the case.
.JPG)
.JPG)
