Live Law: New Delhi: Sunday, April
17, 2016.
Central
Information Commission has recently upheld the decision of Prime Minister’s
Office dismissing an RTI Application seeking certified copy of letter addressed
by former Gujarat Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, to Prime Minister, making
certain allegations against the former Chief Justice of India, Justice Altamas
Kabir.
The Chief
Information Commissioner Radha Krishna Mathur has dismissed the appeal filed by
RTI applicant Devesh Aniruddhabhai Bhatt challenging the decision of Prime
Minister’s Office.
The PMO
denied the copy of the letter on the ground that the information sought by the
Applicant was related to third party (Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya) and Justice
Bhattacharya had refused disclosure of information.
“The
respondent referred to the appellant’s RTI application dated 19.10.2013 and
stated that the information/document sought by the appellant related to third
party and the third party has refused disclosure of information. The respondent
further stated that they have denied the information/document sought by the appellant.”
Earlier,
Justice Bhattacharya had alleged that he was not elevated to the Supreme Court
for opposing Chief Justice Altamas Kabir’s sister, Justice Shukla Kabir’s
elevation to the Calcutta High Court.
Justice
Bhattacharya had sent a 10-page letter to the President of India, Prime
Minister and the Chief Justice of India, regarding his seniority being
overlooked for elevation to the Supreme Court.
Justice
Bhattacharya wrote in his letter (as reported by Indian Express),
“As a human
being, I have a reasonable basis to apprehend that the fact that as a member of
the collegium while I was a judge of the Calcutta HC, I raised serious
objections against the elevation of Smt Shukla Kabir Sinha, your (CJI Altamas
Kabir’s) younger sister, is the real reason for making such observations
against me.” Justice Bhattacharya further said, “When time came for selection
of Smt Shukla Kabir Sinha as a Judge of the HC, I was pressured to agree to
such a proposal as a member of the collegium, but I thought it would amount to
committing rape of the Calcutta HC, which was like my mother and if I didn’t
raise any objections that would amount to closing my eyes while my mother was
being raped. As a result, I used rather strong words so that by looking at the
nature of words used by me, the person responsible for sending such a
recommendation would have a second thought…Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in
resisting the rape of my mother in spite of my earnest endeavour. However, at
the time of my death, I will not repent that I ever compromised with wrong for
the sake of my career.”
It was widely
reported that Justice Bhattacharya opposed the elevation of Justice Shukla on
two grounds, while he was a member of the collegium of the Calcutta High Court.
He pointed out that Justice Shukla was an obscure lawyer with little practice
and her candidature violated the convention of not considering anybody above
the age of 58 years for the High Court Bench. Justice Bhattacharya was also
concerned about the time taken by Justice Shukla Kabir for completing her
education. Justice Bhattcharya noted, “Justice Shukla Kabir took four years for
passing BA examination after clearing senior Cambridge and five years for
getting MA degree after graduation, although the usual time taken for clearing
these examinations is three years and two years respectively.
.JPG)
.JPG)
